
Gass J K3 4fi T 
Book 



3/3 



STATE OF NEW YORK 



PROCEEDINGS 



OF THE 



Judiciary Committee of the Senate 



In the Matter of the Investigation 

Demanded by 

SENATOR STEPHEN J. STILWELL 



ALBANY 

J. B. LYON COMPANY. PRINTERS 

1913 



^ 

^'^ ^ 






>^' -^ 



D. OF D. 
MAY 22 '9'3 



^ \ 



PROCEEDINGS 



Albany, ^. Y., April 1, iai3. 

In the Matter of the Investigation by the Judiciary Committee of the 
Senate of the State of New York, into the Charges Preferred 
by Mr. George H. Kendall, against State Senator Stephen J. 
Stilwell. 

Present : 

Hon. John F. Murtaiigli, Chairman, 

Hon. James D. McClelland, 

Hon. Henry W. Pollock, . 

Hon. Anthony J. Griffin, 

Hon. Herman A. Torborg, 

Hon. George A, Blauvelt, 

Hon. James A. Foley, 

Hon. Henry P. Velte, 

Hon. Herbert P. Coats, 

Hon. Ralph W. Thomas, 

Hon. J. Henry Walters, 

Hon. Thomas H. Bussey, 

Hon. Pobert F. Wagner, 

Hon. Elon R. Brown, 

Hon. William B. Carswell. 



STATE OF ^^EW YORK: 

In Senate, April 3, 1913. 

The Judiciary Committee of the Senate, to which was referred 
the matter of procedure for the investigation demanded by the 
Senator from the twenty-first district, submits the following 
report : 

The Senator from the twenty-first district on the floor of the 
Senate on the 1st day of April, 1913, stated that certain alleged 



charges contained in a telegram to the Executive of the State^ 
a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, con- 
tained charges against the said Senator and he demanded that 
the matter be taken up by the Senate and disposed of in what- 
ever manner the Senate deemed best and said matter by motion 
having been referred to the Judiciary 'Committee to report as to 
the method of procedure, your committee recommends as 
follows : 

First. The investigation shall be publicly conducted either 
by the Committee of the Whole of the 'Senate or the Judiciary 
Oommittee of the Senate as the Senate shall by resolution deter- 
mine, and the committee conducting such investigation shall report 
to the Senate with all convenient speed the proceedings had and 
submit to the Senate the record with a statement of the facts 
thereof for its consideration. 

Second. The investigation shall be of the truth of the state- 
ments set forth in an alleged telegram, of which the following is 
a copy: 

'' ISTew Yoek, IS^. Y., March Zlst, '13: 

I offer you evidence that Stilwell, the man you sent me to 
to draw my stock exchange bill, charged me two hundred 
and fifty dollars for drawing it. I introduced to Senate 
Eevision iClerk Lewis asked me to send check for that 
amount to him, and that they divided proceeds of check. 
I offer you evidence that Stilwell wrote me March 21 to 
' come to his office next day and demanded five hundred dol- 
lars each for four of the codes committeemen to report the 
bill out of committee. I offer you evidence that I said that 
would do no good, unless assembly committee reported it 
and that he said he would canvass them next day and send 
me a wire, that I would imderstand of how much it would 
cost. I offer you evidence of the amount, namely fifteen 
hundred dollars, of his telegram. I declined his proposition. 
He called me up next day and told me there was nothing 
doing unless I paid thirty-five hundred dollars in advance. 
I replied I would telegraph the whole matter to you and 
every legislator unless he reported the bill out in twenty-four 
hours. He did it. Under same penalty I demanded of him 
that my bill be reported out of the assembly committee im- 
mediately and it was done in forty-eight hours. Cogitating 



the matter over, I think I ought to let voii know anyway and 
if you want some undocumentary and hearsay evidence of 
stock exchange using a large amount of money to defeat the 
incorporation bill, I am willing to tell you at least what 
Stilwell told me. 'No newspaper has anything of this." 
(Signed.) GEO. H. KENDALL, 

Pres. N. Y. Bank Note Co, 

Third. The Committee designated by the Senate shall have 
power to enforce the attendance of its members-; to require a roll 
call on any question and make a record thereof; to issue sub- 
poenas and enforce attendance thereunder and compel the pro- 
duction of books and papers thereby; and to limit debate on the 
part of its members and counsel. 

Fourth. The Committee hereby designated to conduct said 
investigation shall have, and it hereby is given and granted, all 
the power and authority given and granted to a committee of the 
Legislature of either house thereof by the Legislative Law, to sit 
in such place or places within the State as it may deem necessary 
and proper for the convenience of witnesses or otherwise, may 
send for persons or papers or documents, compel the attendance 
of witnesses, take under oath oral testimony and receive written 
evidence and may for that purpose employ such counsel, a stenog- 
rapher and such other assistants as it may need. That the ser- 
geant-at-arms of the Senate shall attend such Committee, serve 
or have served such papers and perform such other duties as the 
Committee may require. Should the said investigation be con- 
ducted by the Judiciary Committee the actual and necessary ex- 
penses of the said Committee, in carrying out the provisions of 
this resolution, be paid from the moneys appropriated for the 
contingent expenses of the Legislature by the Treasurer on the 
warrant of the Comptroller and the certificate of the Chairman 
of the Committee. 

Fifth. Parties to this investigation may appear by counsel and 
participate in the proceedings under such conditions as the Com- 
mittee shall prescribe. 

Sixth. All the rules, legal and usual, in Courts of Record of 
this iState, in regard to the introduction of evidence in the ex- 
amination of witnesses, shall be observed by the presiding officer,, 
subject to an appeal to the Committee. 



Seventh, All niotioiis and offers made by Senators or by counsel 
for tlie Committee or for parties to the investigation shall be 
addressed to the presiding officer and if he shall require, or the 
Committee order, they shall be reduced to writing and in the 
Committee of the Whole read at the desk by the clerk, and in the 
Judiciary Committee by the chairman, and the decision thereof 
and of all points and objections raised by said counsel shall be 
made by the presiding officer, which decision shall be final, unless 
an appeal shall be taken therefrom, in the Committee of the 
Whole at the request of five members of the Committee, and in the 
Judiciary Committee at the request of a member of said Com- 
mittee. 

Eighth. The official stenographer of the 'Senate, with such 
assistants as shall be necessary, shall take the proceedings, in- 
cluding oral testimony and evidence, and copies of all documents 
introduced in evidence, the remarks of Senators and counsel, and 
the rulings of the presiding officer, and the clerk of the Senate 
shall procure the same to be printed or mimeographed for the use 
of the members and counsel at the opening of the session on the 
next day after the same shall have been given. 

Ninth. 'Should the Senate determine that such investigation be 
conducted by the Committee of the Whole, said Committee shall 
proceed with the investigation on the 8 th day of April, 1913 ; 
unless otherwise ordered the Senate shall meet in chamber daily 
at 10:00 o'clock in the morning and after devoting one hour to 
its regnilar business shall resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole and such Committee shall take up the investigation and 
continue in session until 1 :00 o'clock p. m., at which hour a 
recess shall be had until 2 :00 o'clock, when it shall meet again 
and continue in session until 5 :00 o'clock. This rule may be 
changed by the Senate without previous notice at any time, and 
the Senate may take a recess or adjourn at or to a different hour. 
Should the Senate determine that the Judiciary Committee con- 
duct said investigation the said Judiciary Committee shall pro- 
ceed with said investigation on the Tth day of April, 1913, at 
2 :00 o'clock p. m., at such place as said Committee may designate. 
The members of the Judiciary Committee while at the attendance 
of the hearings before the Judiciary Committee shall be excused 
from attendance at the regular sessions of the Senate. 

Tenth. Should the investigation be conducted by the Commit- 
tee of the Whole, at the conclusion of the evidence, the committee 



shall fix the time and place for the final arguments of counsel and 
shall determine the number of counsel to be heard, the length of 
time and the order in which they shall be hear^. Should such 
investigation be conducted by the Judiciary Committee, upon the 
submission of the record of such investigation before said com- 
mittee to the Senatej it shall fix the time and place for the final 
arguments of counsel and shall determine the number of coun- 
sel to be heard, the length of time and the order in which they 
shall be heard. 

Eleventh. Upon the vote being taken in the Committee of the 
Whole upon the charges, the commi'ttee shall then report to the 
Senate and the Senate upon receiving the report of committee des- 
ignated and after hearing arguments on said report shall pass 
upon the same, either adopting or rejecting it, and at once there- 
after the question shall be put to the Senate what other or fur- 
ther proceedings, if any, shall be determined upon resolution, as 
follows : 

Does the record submitted to the Senate by the Committee 
establish ofiicial misconduct on the part of the Senator from 
the Twenty-first District? 

If this question is decided in the affirmative, the President 
of the Senate shall thereupon put the following question : 

" Shall the Senator from the Twenty-first District be 
expelled from the Senate?'' 

Upon this question the roll shall be called and each Sena- 
tor shall vote aye or no, imless excused. 

The report as above was adopted by the Senate and also the 
following resolution: 

Resolved, That the investigation of the charges of George H. 
Kendall against Stephen J. Stilwell, Senator, be conducted by the 
Judiciary Committee to hear the evidence and report the record 
with a statement of facts to the Senate for its consideration and 
that the recommendations as to procedure contained in the report 
of the Judiciary Committee, to which was referred the motion to 
recommend a form of procedure, be adopted and that such inves- 
tigation be conducted pursuant to the form of procedure con- 
tained in said report. 



8 

Tlie Chairman. — The Judiciary Coinmittee of the Senate, to 
which wa5 referred the matter of the investigation demanded 'by 
the Senator fro:^! the Twenty-first, is now convened for the pur- 
pose of hearing all testimony in reference to the charges set forth 
^by the Senate resolution providing for the same. The Clerk of 
the Judiciary Committee will call the roll of the Committee. 

The Clerk. — Senator Murtaugh. 
Senator Murtaugh. — Here. 
The Clerk. — Senator McClelland. 
CNo response.) 

The Clerk. — Senator Pollock. I 

Senator Pollock. — Here. 
The Clerk.— Senator Griffin. 
Senator Griffin. — Here. 
The Clerk. — Senator Toi-lDorg. 
Senator Torborg. — Here. 
The Clerk. — Senator Blauvelt. 
Senator Blauvelt. — Here. 
The Clerk.— Senator Foley. 
Senator Foley. — Here. 
The Clerk.— .Senator Velte. 
Senator Velte. — Here. 
The Clerk.— Senator Coats. 
Senator Coats. — Here. 
•The Clerk. — Senator Thomas. 
Senator Thomas. — Here. 
The Clerk. — Senator Walters. 
CNo response.) 
The Clerk. — Senator Bussey. 
Senator Bussey. — Here. 
The Clerk. — Senator AVagner. 
Senator Wagner. — Here. 
The Clerk. — Senator Brown. 
Senator Brown. — Here. 
; The Clerk. — Senator Carswell. 
Senator Carswell. — Here. 

The Chairman. — A quorum is present. Pursuant to the pro- 
visions of the resolution passed by the Senate the parties are 
entitled to counsel and the Committee is entitled to counsel. The 



9 

Chair wishes to know if the Senator from the Twenty-first is rep- 
resented by counsel. 

Senator Stilwelh — Yes. 

The Chairman. — Will you please state the appearances to the 
stenographer. 

Senator Griffin. — They are : Edgar I^. AYilson and William T. 
Byrne, Esq. 

The Chairman. — Mr. Kendall, have you counsel ? 

Mr. Kendall. — If it may please you, sir, I am here only as a 
witness of the State. I think it is ibeyond argument that I will be 
met with considerable hostility land will therefore wish counsel. 
It would seem to me, however,- that the State should provide it for 
me. I would much prefer my ovni counsel in ^N'ew York, my own 
lawyer, who is familiar with my affairs, and hy reason of his 
familiarity with them it would be much more advantageous, 
and I request the Committee to permit me to employ him as my 
counsel. That does not mean that if they do that I will ask any 
adjournment this afternoon. If they will give me my own attorney 
I am perfectly ready to proceed, so far as I am concerned, until he 
arrives to-morrow morning. 

The Chairman. — Mr. Kendall, Rule 5 of the Resolution pre- 
sented on April 3 provides : Parties to this investigation may 
appear by counsel and participate in the proceeding, under such 
conditions as the Committee shall prescribe. I do not construe 
that as meaning that the State should furnish counsel; that 
is, pay counsel; that you might provide. The duty of this 
Committee is to ascertain as far as possible the facts set forth in 
the charges, or the truth of the facts set forth in the charges pre- 
sented by the telegram to the Governor of March 31. We want 
to get at this in the best way possible and with all possible speed. 
If you desire to appear by counsel to-morrow morning it will be all 
right. We will have the counsel that you suggest noted on the 
record, but so far as involving the State in the payiuent of counsel 
I cannot quite see that we have authority imder the jurisdiction 
conferred on us by the Senate. Do you mean that the counsel that 
you wish is to be paid by the State, or did I quite understand 
/ou? 

Mr. Kendall. — I think mv words bear that construction, sir. 



10 

My second sentence in speaking to yon meant to cover tlie sitna- 
tion which was in my mind. I appear here neither as plaintiff nor 
as defendant, but only as a witness for the State, and as to what 
was said I have nothing to fear and therefore I will proceed with- 
out counsel and give the truth as I know it and helieve it to he, and 
my recollection of it, and you are entirely welcome to it — that I 
have no fear of any action or reaction. 

The Chainnan. — We feel if you wish to have counsel that you 
should have counsel. We do not want to har anybody from having 
counsel. If you wish to proceed in this contest all right. If you 
decide you want counsel later at any time just notify the Com- 
mittee and we will see that he is in the same position as counsel 
for the opposition. Has the Attorney-General any suggestions to 
make in reference to this matter ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — We are ready to proceed. We 
are ready to have the answer of the defendant put in. 

The Chairman. — The Attorney-General, I assume, appears as 
counsel for the Committee ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. 

The Chairman. — He goes on record as counsel for the 
Committee. 

Mr. Wilson. — We did not understand the Senator was here 
in the position of a defendant nor that this was to be a trial, but 
an investigation by the Judiciary Committee to report the facts 
to the Senate, but so that there may be no misunderstanding about 
it may I inquire whether there are before this Committee any 
charges that are verified or that are founded upon affidavits or 
depositions that constitute a charge against the Senator? 

The Chairman. — The only charges before the Committee are 
those set forth in the alleged telegram to Governor Sulzer of 
March 31, 1913, which appear in the resolution of the Senate 
dated April 3d. 

Mr. Wilson. — I am new to the business and am not familiar 
with the method or procedure before your Committee, but I saw 
in the public press that affidavits or depositions had been taken, 
that were to be filed before the Committee to constitute the basis 
of the investigation, but with the information from the Chairman 
that the charges are contained in the telegram or purported tele- 



11 

gram, a copy of wliicli is contained in the resolution of x\pril 
od, we will bv way of answer deny all of the allegations contained 
in that telegram, so far as it in any way reflects upon the char- 
acter, or honesty, or integrity of Senator Stilwell, if that may be 
entered in the record as our answer to these charges, and we now 
ask as he asked before the Senate, that you proceed with all con- 
venience to investigate these charges, with a view of determining 
whether they are true or false. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I see by the resolution of the — 

The Chairman. — ^"Just a minute. I^ow, gentlemen, owing to 
the fact that this is a rather small room and a large crowd here, 
we must insist that there be no smoking during the investigation. 
The sergeant-at-arms is instructed to stop smoking in the room. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — First, your second rule adopted 
states that the investigation shall be as to the truth of the state- 
ments set forth in an alleged telegram, of which the following is a 
copy. 

Do I assume that this Committee regards that telegram as suffi- 
cient in and of itself to constitute the basis of this investigation ? 
If it is desired that it be supported by an affidavit, why, we are 
ready to file one, but I have not so understood. The affidavits that 
the learned counsel refers to, undoubtedly are the affidavits that 
were sent for by the people to substantiate the facts charged, and 
it was not contemplated that any affidavits were necessary in sup- 
port of the formal charge before the Committee. 

Mr. Wilson. — We do not ask that any affidavits be filed, only 
that we may know what is before the Committee. 

The Chairman. — The only thing, Counselor, that goes before 
the Committee is the telegram embodied in the report of the 
Judiciary Committee to the Senate, and adopted by the Senate in 
its report of April 3d. We are ready to proceed. 

Mr. AVilson. — We should like to have the taking of evidence 
deferred to some time to-morrow, at whatever hour will be con- 
venient for the Committee and Attorney-General. We prefer not 
to proceed with taking the evidence this afternoon. I have only 
just arrived here myself, and I have not had an opportunity to go 
over the matter as thoroughly as I would like to, with the Senator, 
before the evidence is taken. I may say further, I am led par- 
tially to make the suggestion, by reason of information that has 



12 

come to us since we entered this Cliamber, and it is of such great 
importance, or I think will become so before you are through, 
that I feel as if I ought to consult with my associate with refer- 
ence to what we shall do concerning this information. 

The Chairman. — Counselor, is not there any way that you 
could go over this matter within an hour or an hour and a half, so 
we could start this proceeding ? Of course any delay to the Com- 
mittee here practically impedes the work of the legislation before 
the Senate, and it is the desire of the Committee to go into this 
matter immediately. If we delay it luitil to-morrow morning, 
there is a great deal of time lost. AYe could take a recess for an 
hour and a half, if necessary. 

Mr. Wilson. — The matter to which I referred is one of con- 
siderable importance. If it was proper, I would submit it to the 
Chairman or the Attorney-Greneral, so that there might be no mis- 
apprehension of the reasonableness of our request. I assume from 
what the Attorney-Greneral has said, and from what the com- 
plainant has stated, that he is to be the first witness. We shall try 
and take as little of the time of this Honorable Committee as is 
consistent with doing justice to what we conceive to be the facts, 
and from what experience I have had in the trial of cases, I am 
quite sure that the time that we spend in determining what we 
will do with reference to this very important matter, will aid the 
Committee in reaching a more speedy determination, and taking 
much less of your time than if we should go on this afternoon. If 
the Chairman will permit, I would like to consult with the At- 
torney-General for a single moment. 

The Chairman. — Very well. 

Attorney-Ceneral Carmody. — I should be glad, if the Com- 
mittee please, to give every opportunity to the defendant to pre- 
pare himself for trial, and I think from the suggestion that pos- 
sibly "some preoaration is necessary before the first witness is 
disposed of. I do not intend to call Mr. Kendall as the first wit- 
ness, and from what I ha,ve now learned, I think that the request 
is a reasonable one. 

The Chairman. — Very well. The Committee will then adjourn 
till ten o'clock to-morrow morning. 

Thereupon, an adjournment is taken to Tuesday, April 8, 1913, 
at 10 A. M. 



13 



Alba:ty, K Y., Afjril 8, 1913. 
In the Matter of the Investigation of the Judiciary Committee of 
the Senate of the State of New York, into the Charges Pre- 
ferred by Mr. George H. Kendall, against State Senator Stephen 
J. Stilwell. 

The Chairman. — The Clerk will call the roll of the Oonunittee. 

The Clerk. — Mr. Murtaugh. 

Mr. Murtaugh. — Here. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Blauvelt. 

Mr. Blauvelt.— Here. 

The Clerk. — Mr. Brown. 

Mr. Brown. — Here. 

The Clerk. — Mr. Bussej. 

Mr. Biissey. — Here. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Carswell. 

Mr. Carswell. — Here. 

The Clerk— Mr. Coats. 

Mr. Coats not present. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Foley. 

Mr. Foley. — Here. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Griffin. 

Mr. Griffin not present. 

The Clerk.— Mr. McCleUand. 

Mr. McClelland. — Here. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Pollock. 

Mr. Pollock. — Here. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Thomas. 

Mr. Thomas. — Here. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Torborg. 

Mr. Torborg. — Here. 

The Clerk— Mr. Velte. 

Mr. Velte. — Here. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Wagner. 

Mr. Wagner. — Here. 



The Clerk.— Mr. Walters. 

Mr. Walters. — Here. 

The Chairman. — A qiiornm is present. 

The Clerk. — Thirteen present. 



14 - . - . 

The Cliairman. — The Committee is ready to proceed with the 
investigation. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen 
of the Committee, Mr. Kendall is represented here this morning 
by counsel. I would like to have his appearance recorded; 
Mr. Lyon. 

The Chairman. — What is the name ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Lyon. L-y-o-n. 

Mr. Lyon. — Edward P. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Edward Lyon. Pursuant to the 
request of the Committee I will proceed to put in the evidence 
that we have been able to obtain. I will call first Mr. George 
Harry Kendall. 

The Chairman. — George H. Kendall. 

Mr. Kendall takes the stand. 

The Chairman. — Mr. Kendall, you solemnly swear that the 
testimony you shall give in this proceeding in the matter of the 
investigation demanded by Senator Stilwell v\^ill be the truth, the 
whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Kendall.— I do. 

Direct examination by Attorney-General Carmody. 

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Kendall ? A. Xew York city. 

Q. What is your business ? A. I am president of the ^ew 
York Bank I^ote Company. 

Q. What is the business of the E'ew York Bank ^N'ote Com- 
pany? A. Engraving stocks, bonds and bank notes from steel 
only. 

Q. Is it a corporation ? A. It is. 

Q. How long has it been doing business, and v/here ? A. 
LTnder the name of the Kendall Bank iSTote Company, which was 
subsequently changed by legislative process to the ISTew York Bank 
^ote Company, thirty-four years; all the time in the city of 
New York. 

Q. It was formerly known as the Kendall Bank J^ote Com- 
pany? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And has for a number of years been known as the Xew 
York Bank 'Note Company? A. In excess of twenty-five years. 



15 

Q. Did jou recently, in business for the company, have a 
conversation with Governor Sulzer ? A. I did. 

Q. And as a result of that conversation did you see Senator 
Stilwell ? A. I did. 

Q. When was that ? A. The first conversation with the 
Governor and the first interview with Mr. Stilwell were upon 
February 13th this year. 

Q. Yes. A. The first time I saw either of them. 

Q. Did you see him at the suggestion of the Governor ? A. I 
did. 

Q. Will you narrate the conversation you had with Senator 
Stilwell at that time ? A. I went to see Senator Stilwell at the 
office of the Committee on Codes, the Senate Committee on 
Codes; in this building. He had his hat and coat on and was 
just leaving the room. I commenced to state to him the matter. 

Q. State what you said? A. I said that the Governor had 
sent me to see you about matters relating to the I^ew York Bank 
E'ote Company for the purpose of having a bill drawn to meet a 
particular case and suggests that you give me a hearing before 
your Committee to. state the matter so — that is, the matter relat- 
ing to the 'New York Bank Note Company — so that the bill 
may be drawn to fit the circumstances as I narrate them to you, 
Mr. Stilwell. 

Q. Was that all that occurred at that time? A. Oh^ no, sir. He 
said — this is substantially, I cannot pretend to say the exact 
words but this is the substance — he said ''This is about the 
engraving business ? " '' Yes.'^ 

"And it must be a small matter? '' I said '' Oh no." And he 
said '' I haven't time to attend to it now." He said " What is the 
size of your concern ? " " Oh," I said, '' We own our own 
real estate in the heart of the city and we have a handsome surplus 
in cash and we have a very large plant, and he seemed more 
interested. 

Q. State what he said ? A. We turned into the room and sat 
down and then went over the discrimination situation quite 
thoroughly. The end of it was — 

Q. We want that conversation, ]\Ir. Kendal], if you can give 
it as it occurred ; if not, give it in substance ? A. '' Mr. Stilwell," 
I said to him, '' The facts of the bank note situation — how the 
Stock Exchange did not permit anybody to buy their securities or 
have them engraved by anyone except the American Bank jSTote 



16 

Company or one of its subsidiaries. That even though he was 
the president of the Pennsylvania railroad, the Stock Exchange 
said to him that '^ you shall not buy of only the American." I 
said to him that that was wicked because the American charged 
double the market value and it w^as further blameworthy because 
the American Bank Note Company was largely controlled by the 
'New York Stock Exchange^ and he said that he would give me a 
chance to state all that before his Committee, and then afterwards 
in consideration of what they learned of the situation, he would 
see what could be done regarding the drafting of the bill. That 
is substantially all that occurred at that interview, as I remember 
at the present moment. 

Q. That is all that you recall of that conversation ? A. At the 
present moment, yes, sir. 

Q. Did he say anything about examining the Code to see where 
such an amendment as you might want would be appropriately 
inserted ? A. Yes, sir, he said that any legislation would probably 
come as an amendment to the Penal Code, and that he would need 
to look up the matter. 

Q. Was there anything said about when you were to return to 
Albany ? A. Oh, yes. 

Q. State what — 

Mr. Wilson. — Do I understand that the witness has stated all 
he recalls ? 

Mr. Carmody. — Yes ; that is as I understand it. 

Q. Is that true ? You have stated all that you recall of that 
conversation ? A. At the present moment. 

Q. That occurred on the 13th? A. Thirteenth of Eebruary 
this year. 

Q. In that conversation was there anything said about when 
you were to return to Albany? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State what was said on that subject ? A. He said that there 
was to be a hearing on some pending bills on the 19th. 

Q. J^ineteenth ? A. Of that same month, and that I should 
come up and tell my story before his Committee. 

Q. ISTow is that all that you recall that occurred at that time? 
A. All I recall at the present moment. I was with him perhaps 
a half an hour. 

Q. Did you come to Albany on the 19th of February? A. Yes, 
sir. If I may be permitted I would like to add that Mr. Field 
was with me. 



ir 

Q. Mr. Fields who is Mr. Field? A. He is vice-president of 
the ASew York Bank i^ote Company — during the entire con- 
versation. 

Q. Did jou see Senator Stilwell on the 19th? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where? A. First in the Senate Chamher. 

Q. At what time of the day v/as that ? A. I should say along 
about noon. 

Q. Xow state what occurred there, please? A. Well, merely 
that I waited for him to be through with his duties in the Senate. 

Q. You found him in the Senate? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you have a conversation with him after he left the 
Senate? 2V. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where ? A. Well, first in the Senate Chamber. 

Q. Well, what occurred there? A. Well, nothing special that 
I recollect, except that I told him that I w^as on hand. 

Q. You say nothing particular occurred in the Senate Cham- 
ber? A. That I recollect. 

Q. What occurred after he left the Senate ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Was there a conversation in the Senate Chamber ? 
Attorney-General Carmody. — I have tried to get it. 

Q. Was there a conversation in the Senate ? A. Oh, yes. 

Q. What was it ? A. Why, all that I recollect of it is simply 
that I was on hand to speak before his Committee on the Bank 
!N'ote situation. 

Q. Did he make any reply '{ A. Xone that I recollect now. 
It was an ordinary conversation. 

Q. Xow go on and tell what happened after that, giving all 
of the conversation between you? A. I do not recollect any. special 
conversation at that time. I showed up at the Senate Committee 
on Codes, I should think in the vicinity of 3 o'clock in the after- 
noon. 

Q. ^ow, have you stated all that you recall that occurred be- 
tween yourself and Senator Stilwell in the Senate Chamber, and 
after you left the Senate Chamber, and before the hearing — 
before the Codes Committee ? A. Everything that I recall. 

Q. Was there anything said about a bill or the draft of a bill, 
or did he produce the draft of a bill ? A. jSTot at that time, no, 
sir. 

Q. Did he later? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then go on with your story. You appeared before the Com- 
mittee ? A, Yes, sir. there was a hearing on, on some legislation 



18 

I think, called tlie Moving Picture Show Bill, in his Committee. 
It was very long. It took many hours, and toward the latter part 
of it, he got up from his seat at the end of the table where he wns 
presiding as Chairman, and beckoned me to follow him, and I went 
out into the hall with him, and he produced from his pocket — 
his inside pocket, two sheets of paper, smallish sheets of paper, 
little larger than note size, and showed me where he had drafted 
— and bv drafted I mean written a proposed bill for my relief, 
and read it to me, and I said that that did not seem to me to be 
efficient to lit our case, to give us relief, and he said that it would 
take some research ; that he was a lawyer practicing in ^N'ew York 
and was a member of a law firm there, and that he ought to be 
paid for drawing the bill ; — I said, '^ You surprise me a little, 
because the Grovernor mentioned to me that there was a bill draft- 
ing department, and sent you to me to have you hear my case 
and to have the bill drawn." 

The Chairman. — Will you suspend a moment. The sergeant- 
at-arms will see that there is more order in the room. It is diffi- 
cult for the Committee to hear. 

Q. Will you kindly talk louder if you can conveniently so that 
the Committee can hear. Can you take up your narrative where 
you left it off ? Proceed. A. I said to him, " How much will it 
cost anyway? " and he said, ^' It ought to be worth $500," and I 
said, ^' It could not take more than a couple of days' research to 
find out what you want to know, and I should think $100 a day 
would pay you amply," and he said, " Make it $250," I said, 
^^All right." 

By Senator Griffin: 

Q. Who was talking then? A. Mr. Stilwell was on one side 
and myself on the other. 

By Attorney-General Carmody. — 'No one else present ? A. IsTo, 
sir, we were walking uj) and down the hall. 

Mr. Wilson. — I object to that. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I did not understand what the 

objection was to it. 

Mr. Wilson. — He stated at the beginning this was during the 
hearing at the Codes Committee, when Mr. Stilwell as chairman 
left the table and came down, and then the conversation as I under- 
stood him occurred iu the room at that tinae, 



19 

The Witness. — Absolutely no. I said the Senator beckoned me 
to go out into the hall and I followed him out into the hall out- 
side of the hearing-room. 

]\Ir. Wilson. — If it occurred in the hall I would like to have 
it appear. If he chased him into an outhouse I would like to 
have that appear. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I think that remark is objec- 
tionable. 

The Chairman. — That need not appear in the record. 

Q. You went outside the Codes Committee and your conversa- 
tion occurred in the corridor, in the hall, in the Capitol ? A. Yes, 
we were walking up and down the hall. 

Q. Was there anybody present during the conversation? A. 
Xo, sir. 

Q. Will you proceed to narrate the rest of the conversation if 
there was any more ? A. I am so broken up on this thing that — 
(after a pause) Oh, I asked him if he wanted the money then 
and he said no. I asked him if he wanted his money then, and if 
so I had not that amount in my pockets. He said no, and I said, 
'* I will send you a check for it," and he said, '^ jSTo, don't do that, 
I will introduce you to a man named Lewis and you can make the 
check out to him and send it to him." 

Q. Anything else? A. l^othing that I recollect at the 
present moment, except we returned to the Committee on Codes 
of tlie Senate, and he resumed his place at the head of the table. 

Q. You have stated all that you recollect that took place in that 
conversation, have you ? A. All I recollect at the moment, sir. 

Q. Did he tell you who Lewis was ? A. I think he said that he 
was a clerk of the Senate Revision Department, or some such name 
as that, some phrase like that. 

Q. After that you spoke before the Committee on the bill or on 
a bill ? A. Are you speaking of this interview ? 

Q. On the 19th of February? A. 'No. I merely told the 
Bank l^ote story. 

Q. Did you speak before the Committee? A. Yes, but there 
was no bill pending at that time. 

Q. You stated that Senator Stilwell read to you a proposed bill 
or amendment ? A. A proposed bill. 

Q. A proposed bill ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q, Did he give it to you or show it to you ? A. Yes, sir, lie 



20 

stood in the ball and lie look this out of his pocket and read it to 
me. 

Q. Did he leave it with jou or keep it 'I A. Kept it. I told 
him it would not fit the case. 

Q. Was that all that occurred on the 19th of February? A. 
That is all I recollect. 

Q. I hope you will continue to speak loud enough so that you 
can be heard ? A. I am at the limit of my voice. 

Q. Was there any arrangement made about your returning to 
Albany again ? A. Oh, yes. 

Q. With whom was that made ? A. Mr. Stilwell. 

Q. State what was said about that? A. He said that my nar- 
rative regarding my affairs had a bearing on the propriety of mak- 
ing the Exchange — of forcing the Exchange to incorporate, and 
would I come up and speak on the Governor's bill which was to 
take place on the 26th of February ? 

Q. And did you come up? A. I told him so, with pleasure, 
and he said — 

Q. I do not call for any conversation on that bill, imless the 
Senate wants to hear it, on the Stock Exchange bill. I do not 
think it has any bearing on this question. I don't want to cut it 
off if the Senators desire it. 

The Chairman. — There is no objection, I understand; let him 
go ahead. 

Q. I suggest that you refrain from narrating the conversation 
on any other bill but yours or in relation to any other transaction 
than the one we are investigating, A. There was none, except 
he asked me to write him a letter for formality's sake to appear; 
there was no conversation, 

Q. When did you come to Albany again ? A. On the twenty- 
sixth, 

Q. In the meantime had any communication passed between 
yourself and Senator Stilwell ? A, The letter I just mentioned. 

Q. A letter that you wrote Senator Stilwell ? A, Yes, sir. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Have you the original letter or 
may we use a copy? 

Mr. Wilson. — What date was it ? 

Attorney-General Carmody.— The 20th of February. 

Mr. Wilson. — Yes, I have it, (Handing letter to Attorney- 
General Carmody.) 



21 

Q. I show you letter dated April 20th, addressed to Hon. 
Stephen J. Stilwell, State Capitol, Albany. Is that the letter 
yon refer to? A. Yes, sir; that is my signature. 

Q. That was sent by you to Senator Stilwell on that date ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Any objection to putting it in 
evidence now ? 



Mr. Wilson. — Supposing you read it so we can all hear it 



Attorney-General Carmody. — February 20, 1913. 
" Honorable Stephen J. Stilwell, Stdte Capitol^ Albany, N. Y.: 
" My Dear Sir. — I wish to be heard in favor of the TdIII re- 
quiring the Xew York Stock Exchange to incorporate at the hear- 
ing on February 26th. I formally apply to be put on the list of 
speakers. If this application is not properly addressed to you, 
will you kindly inform me to whom I should write. 
^' Very truly yours, 

^'GEORGE H. KEITDALL.'' 

I think this letter had better be marked. 

Letter referred to received in evidence and marked Exhibit 1. 

Mr. Wilson. — Did I understand that he just testifi-ed that on 
the 19th the Senator had asked him or requested him to ap- 
pear? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — On the 26th. 

Q. That is true, isn't it, you have testified that Senator Stil- 
well asked you to come up on the 26th, or suggested you come 
up ; which w^as it ? A. He said that the story that I told wa» 
interesting — 

Mr. Wilson. — I don't care about that. When did he state 
that the Senator had asked him to come? 

The AAltness- — Am I to answer, sir ? 

The Chairman. — Yes, answer the question clearly. 

The Witness. — The conversation occurred on the 19th, sir. 

Q. Well, you did come on the 26th? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Did you speak before the Committee on that bill ? A. Yes, 
sir. 



^2 

Q. Did jou have any conversation with Senator Stilwell in 
regard to that matter ? A. I did. 

Q. When and where did that occur ^ A. Well, during that 
day — I think at least three conversations. 

Q. Well, give us the first one i A. Hadn't i better tell it all i 

Q. What 'i A. Hadn- 1 1 better tell it all i 

Q. Tell it all, beginning with the first ? A. In sequence. 

Q. Yes. A. I came to the Senate Chamber and they were in 
session, .the Senator in his raised seat, and I came to the rail. 
He saw me. He came and shook hands with another man and 
with me, and invited me inside to have a seat. I asked him if 
I would have an opportunity of talking with him if I came in- 
side, aiid he said no, and I said I would rather stay outside in 
the lobby and smoke, and then he said he would see me when the 
session was over. I sat outside a while waiting for him. I did 
wait outside, but when the session Vv^as over I missed him, I did 
not see him. I inquired where he was, and was told that he 
was in a committee then in session, presided over by a gentleman 
named — 

Q. Senator Murtaugh ? A. McMurtaugh — some such name 
as that. I went around there to the place where I think it is 
marked the Committee on Judiciary. The door opened, and I 
saw Mr. Stihveli seated there. 1 waited until that meeting broke 
up. Oh — I think that previously when I saw Senator Stilwell 
in the Senate, I invited him to have hmch. When he came out 
of that committee room I asked him if he would come and have 
lunch. He said " We don't eat up here." I commenced talking 
about the bill, and he said, '' Well we will go around and have 
a bite anyway, and we went around to the Capitol restaurant and 
had our lunch there. We had very little time to discuss the 
matter at all a$ the place was crowded, and people were con- 
stantly coming to Senator Stilwell and talking to him. 

After the ending of the lunch I went around to the Senate 
Chamber to await the commencement of the hearing upon the 
ptock Exchange bills. The Senator went with me, that is, 
Senator Stilwell, and Ave there joined Mr. Field, Mr. George A. 
Field, and Senator Stilwell said, " I will send for Mr. Lewis, 
the man you are to make out the check to, and introduce you to 
him," and I don't think that he did send, but I think we saw 
Lewis over in the corner of the room and beckoned him over. I 
think that was it. When Mr. Lewis came up, he introduced Mr. 
Lewis to Mr. Field and myself, all four standing together. 



2S' 

Q. What time was that in the day? (No response.) 
Q. Or about what time ? A. I should guess half past two. 
Q. Was that the first time you had met Mr. Lewis ? A. Yes, 
sir, absolutely. 

Q. Or seen him? A. Or seen him. 

The Chairman. — What date was this ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — February 26th. 

Mr. Wilson. — May I inquire if down to that time he had 
made any arg'ument or any statement before the Codes Committee ? 

Q. Had you appeared before the Committee up to that time? 
A. The Codes Committee ? 

Q. The Codes Committee, on the 26th? A. I appeared first 
before the Codes Committee. 

Q. Before this conversation ? A. I will state it now — 

Q. We have that. W^e are talking about the 26th. You say 
you came up to the hearing before the Committee on the Stock 
Exchange bills ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Had you appeared and spoken on that bill prior to meet- 
ing Mr. Lewis ? A. Oh, no. 

Q. Or prior to this conversation? A. I^o, sir. 

Q. Now this is the first time you met Lewis ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Or had had any conversation with him, as I understand it ? 
A. Or ever saw him. 

Q. Or heard any conversation between him and anyone else ? 
A. It is the first time that I ever saw Mr. Lewis, was when 
Senator Stilwell introduced him. 

Mr. Wilson. — Just a moment. 

The Witness. — Let me finish my answer, please. Will you 
please read my answer to me. 

"A. It is the first time that I ever saw Mr. Lewis, was when 
Senator Stilwell introduced him '^ to Mr. Field and myself on 
the afternoon of the 26th. 

Mr. Wilson. — All that I wanted to know is this, so as to save 
cross-examination, as to whether or not he had appeared before 
the Codes Committee, before he saw Mr. Lewis in the restaurant 
and had ever made a statement to the Committee of what he 
desired. 

The Chairman. — Do you understand that question now ? 



24 

The Witness. — Read the question, please. 

^^ Q. Whether or not you had appeared before the Codes Com- 
mittee before vou saw Mr. Lewis in the restaurant and had ever 
made a statement to the Committee of what jou desired? A. 
My answer is that the first time that I ever saw Mr. Lewis was 
on the 26th. 

Q. You have not got the question. Did you appear before the 
Codes Committee on the 26th of February, before you met Mr. 
Lewis at this time that you have now described ? A. Yes, sir, I 
have so stated three times, I think, on the 19th of February. 

Q. ^o; but on the 26th. You have testified that you appeared 
there on the 19th. Did you appear before the Committee? A. 
ISlot before the Committee, but before the Committee on the Stock 
Exchange bilL 

The Chairman. — There was a hearing on the Stock Incorpora- 
tion bill before the Joint Committee of the Assembly and Senate 
on the 26th of February ? 

The Witness. — Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. — And there was a hearing before the Codes 
Committee on bill 1188; that is your bill? 

The Witness. — Before 'No. 1188 was formulated, yes, sir; 
namely, on the 19th of that month. 

Mr. Wilson. — That answers the question then that he had been 
before the Codes Committee and had made his statement to them 
previous to the 26th. 

The Witness. — Unless my dates are all mixed. 

The Chairman. — He appeared, as I understand it, before the 
Codes Committee, on bill 1188 on the 19th of February. 

The Witness. — That was the time I gave the narrative and be- 
fore bill 1188 was drawn and printed. 

The Chairman. — But the hearing you are speaking about now 
on February 26th, was a joint hearing of the Judiciary, and Codes 
Committee in the Senate Chamber, on the' Stock Incorporation 
bill ? 

The W^itness. — Yes, sir, absolutely. May I ask you, sir, am I 
entitled — I have no memorandums ; never made any. Am I 
entitled to call for the papers and see them ? 



25 

Attorney-General Carmodv. — At the present you seem to be 
getting along all right. 

The Witness. — I think those dates are all right, sir. 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. At the time when you met Senator Stilwell and up to this 
point in the narrative, was there before you a copy of a bill or a 
draft of a bill, such as you wanted to protect your company ? A. 
'No, sir. 

Q. Did jou bring any with you to Albany ? A. I did. 

Q. On the 26th?' A. Three — four. 

Q. You brought four ? A. Yes, sir, four. One drafted by my- 
self, one drafted by Mr. Lyon, one drafted by Mr. Field, and a 
compositor bill of the three, and I think there was one I got some- 
body else to draft. 

Q. You had a bill drafted by Mr. Lyon, your attorney ? A. Yes, 
sir ; one by myself, one by Mr. Field and — 

Q. Did you produce those in the presence of Senator Stilwell 
before meeting Lewis ? A. I did not. 

Q. Go on from that point and tell what occurred ? A. Keally, 
I am so jumbled up I don't know what the point is. 

Q. You say you were introduced to Mr. Lewis in the presence 
of Mr. Field ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. From that point in the narrative, proceed. What occurred 
when Mr. Lewis came up ? A. Senator Stilwell said, ^' Take 
those drafts of the bills " — speaking to me — " and go with Mr. 
Lewis and see what he can do to overcome — to rewrite the thing 
to overcome the objections that you make on it." I said, '^ I 
haven't them; Mr. Field has them," and I said, ''Mr, Field is 
very familiar with it and with your permission I will send him, 
instead of myself. I would like to stay and hear the Stock 
Exchange matter here, hear Mr. Melville." He said, '^ Very well, 
you two go over " — that is, Mr. Field and Mr. Lewis — " You 
go over " — in some room he mentioned, I think pointing into that 
(indicating) corner, the southeast corner of the Capitol, if I have 
got the points of the compass right, and they departed, and that 
was the last I saw of them for one to two hours. 

Q. !Xow have you stated all that occurred after you met Mr. 
Lewis, and before Mr. Lewis and Mr. Field took their departure 
— all that you recall? A. All I can recall at the moment. 

Q. Was there anything said about a check in Mr. Lewis' 
presence? A. He said that before Mr. Lewis came up. 



26 

Q. He said wliat ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Just a moment. Let liim answer the question 
whether anything was said at the table, in the presence of Mr. 
Lewis, about a check. 

The Witness. — Li the presence of who ? 

Q. Mr. Lewis, just answer the question I have asked. 

The Witness. — Read the question. 

^' Q. AVas there anything said about a check in Mr. Lewis' 
presence ? " A. I ans^vered that by saying no, that the Senator 
said to me before — 

Q. That answers the question. There was nothing said about a 
check in Lewis' presence? A. In Lewis' presence, I qualify it 
that way. 

Q. What was said on the subject of the check, was said before 
you were introduced to Lewis ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is, — as you have testified ? A. Whether it is or not, 
that is a fact. 

Mr. Wilson. — That was on the 19th. 
The Witness. — ^o, sir. 

Q. The 26th was the date when you met Lewis and the first 
date that you met Lewis? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The date when Senator Stilwell told you to send the check 
to Mr. Lewis ? A. Yes, but he had spoken of the matter before. 

Q. Yes; w^e have got what you said on the 19th. We do not 
want to go over this more than once if we can help it. 'Now that 
is all that occurred until after Field and Lewis took their de- 
parture. Was there anything else that occurred between yourself 
and Senator Stilwell on that day, that you recall, as bearing on 
the subject ? A. Why, there was no conversation between Senator 
Stilwell and myself, except the one I was speaking of. 

Q. That was all that occurred on the 26th, at Albany, between 
yourself and Senator Stilwell ? A. Between 2.30 and say a quar- 
ter of 1 at night. If I recollect it, that Committee went into 
session nominally at 2.30 and it ended at 12.30, at midnight. 

Q. Did you afterwards address a communication to Lewis, 
from ^ew York ? A. Oh yes, sir, I had forgotten that. I prom- 
ised to Senator Stilwell that I would send him a check as soon as 
I got back. 



27 

Q. Do yon rememLer the date ? A. The 27th of Febiiiary, 
this year. 

Q. From whom did voii get the address of Mr. Lewis ? A. 
Why, Mr. Stilwell. 

Q. Yon have not stated that part of the conversation, if there 
was snch conversation. Xow I will ask von to state if he told yon 
where to send the check to Lewis ? A. Is there snch a thing as 
Senate Revision Department here ? I think those were the words, 
to send to Mr. Lewis, to Senate Revision in Albany. 

Q. Did he give yon Mr. Lewis' fnll name ? A. As I nnderstood 
it, bnt it seems that I did not have it correct. 

Q. Where did yon get Lewis' name, his first name ? A. I think 
he gave Mr. Field a card, bnt I won't swear to that, bnt I in 
ordering the check made ont said simply ^^ Samnel Lewis." It 
appears his name was Samnel Lewis, Jr. 

Q. Where did yon get the name Samnel? A. Either he told 
me or the Senator told me, or I read it on the card. I won't be 
snre. 

Mr. Wilson. — May I interrnpt for a moment. Do I nnder- 
stand him to say that he has detailed all of the conversations and 
transactions he had had with Lewis down to that time ? 

The Witness. — Yon do. 

Mr. Wilson. — Either in the restanrant or elsewhere ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He has detailed all that I know 
abont, and if he has omitted any yon can call his attention to it. 

Q. Xow I show yon (handing to witness) what pnrports to be a 
check, dated Febrnary, 27, 1913. Is that the check yon sent to 
Lewis ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that (indicating) yonr signatnre ? A. iSTo, sir. 

Q. By w-hom is that signed ? A. E. G. Allen. 

Q. Who is E. G. Allen ? A. The treasnrer, he signs all thf 
checks. 

Mr. Wilson. — I object to the evidence, npon the gronnd first 
that we do not hear, and second, I wonld like to see the witness,' 
Vvdiile Ee details jn?t exactly v/hat he done with reference to the 
check. 

The Chairman. — Well, I gness Vv^e can get aronnd that objec- 
tion. If the conversation in the rear of the room does not cease 



28 

immediately, we will clear the room. We cannot hear tip here, 
and Mr. Witness^ if jou will speak a little louder. 

The Witness. — I honestly can't speak. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — You must try. 

The Witness. — Let me stand up then. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I do not care how you do it. 

Q. Mr! E. G. Allen, who signed that check, is treasurer of tha 
l^ew York Bank 'Note Company ? A. Yes^ sir. 
Q. Is that check paid ? A. Yes, sir. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Will these indorsements be ques- 
tioned (handing check to Mr. Wilson) | 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I would like to have produced 
before this Committee the original letter, written by Mr. Kendall 
— George H. Kendall, on February 27, 1913, addressed to Samuel 
Lewis, Jr., 'Senate Revision Clerk, Albany, ISTew York, and I 
would like to have the Sergeant-at-Arms instructed to produce 
that letter and Mr. Lewis with it. I will have a copy of the letter 
to him for identification. This is the letter enclosing the check. 
ITow do I understand that the indorsement on the back of this 
check, purporting to be the indorsements of Samuel Lewis and 
Samuel Lewis, Jr., are not admitted ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Those are not admitted. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Then have the Sergeant-at-Arms 
produce it. 

Mr. Wilson. — -All of the indorsements showing payment^ you 
need not trouble yourself to produce. Those we will admit. 

Q. This (handing to witness) is the paper you mailed to Mr. 
Lewis ? A. It is, sir. 

Q. And this check came back to you, having been cancelled 
and paid ? A. It did, sir. 

Q. Was this check enclosed in an envelope addressed to Mr. 
Lewis? A. It was, sir. 

Q. At what address? A. As I recollect it, Senate Revision, 
Capitol, Albany; but my letter book is here. I can show, sir. 

Q. Did you afterwards receive a letter purporting to come from 
Samuel Lewis ? A. I did, sir. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Lewis' handwriting ? A. Only by reason 



29 

of the letters received purporting to come from him, and a tele- 
jDhone communication of his to my ofEce. 

Q. Did you receive this letter purporting to come from him 
(showing letter) ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At what date did you receive it? A. Am I permitted to 
look at this letter ? 

Q. Yes. A. Immediately thereafter; I think March 4th. I 
cannot swear — 

By Mr. Wilson : 

Q. Immediately thereafter means what? A. (No answer). 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. This is dated March 3d; ahout when did you receive it? 
A. I think March 4th, sir. 

Q. I show you a letter dated March 5 th, purporting to he on 
stationery of the Senate Chamber of the State of JSTew York, 
addressed to you, and signed Samuel Lewis, Jr. Did you receive 
that letter? A. I did, sir. 

Q. Is that the same signature that is on the other letter ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that the same signature that is on the hack of the check ? 
A. It is, sir, except one is written '' Samuel Lewis," and the other 
is written " Samuel Lewis, Jr." 

Mr. Wilson. — I object to it on the ground the witness is not 
shown to be competent to testify to that. 

Mr. Byrne, — What is the ruling on that ? 

The Chairman.- - The objection is well taken. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Will you produce a letter dated 
March 3d, sent by George H. Kendall to Senator Stilwell ? 

Q. (Showing copy of letter) Did you send the letter to Senator 
Stilwell about March 3d? A. Yes, sir. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Is there any question about this 
being a copy. Senator? 

Senator Stilwell. — I will tell you whether there is or not 
(examining letter). No, there is no question. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It is admitted it is a copy, and 
I would like to read this in the record. 



30 

March 3, 1913. 
^^ Hon. Stephen J. Stilwell, Albany, N. Y.: 

''My dear Sir. — ■Will you kindly have a copy of our act sent 
to me. Mr. Lewis promised the day I was in Albany to send 
me one, and I wrote him on the 27th, making the same request, 
to neither of which has he responded." 

Q. That letter you wrote and mailed to Senator Stilwell ? A. 
I did. 

Q. On the 3d ? A. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. — Will you ask the following questions at the 

request of Senator Griffin ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. 

Q. These questions Senator Griffin desires to have you answer: 
In your lettej- to Mr. Lewis, accompanying the check, you say, 
" Enclosed please find check for $250, as per my promise of yes- 
terday.'' What promise did you refer to? A. What I said just 
before. 

Q. State what you referred to? A. Just as I testified before, 
that I promised Senator Stilwell to mail the check next day, which 
would be the 27th; I having been up here to the Stock Exchange 
Licorporation bill, on the 26th. 

Q. Did you refer to any promise you made — this is my ques- 
tion — to Mr. Lewis ? A. I did not make him any. 

Q. Did you refer to the promise you made to Senator Stilwell? 
A. Yes. 

Q. Here is the other question of Senator Griffin: I understood 
you to say that you had not talked to Mr. Lewis about the check ? 
A. No, I had not talked to him. My recollection is that there was 
no conversation between Mr. Lewis and myself about the check. 

Q. When did 3^ou next have any communication with Senator 
Stilwell or with any one else on the subject of this matter after 
the letters from Mr. Lewis, awaiting identification ? 

Mr. Wilson. — I object to that question upon the ground it 
assumes what has not been proven. We do not understand that 
these communications and conversations — the ground of our ob- 
jection is that these communications between Lewis and the 
v/itness are not competent evidence against the Senator unless 
they were had in his presence. I understood him to say that he 
never had one single word of conversation with Mr. Lewis, except- 



31 

ing^at this meeting. I do not understand that this letter or this 
check has yet been offered in evidence. If it has been^ neither 
my associate nor myself are aware of it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — We sent for Mr. Lewis to iden- 
tify his endorsement. 

Mr. Wilson. — If I may say one word further, we will not put 
you to any difficulty or trouble in proving the authenticity of 
these letters or of this check further than we expect that you are 
going to call Mr. Lewis. If that is so, we have no further 
objection. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The question is now, do you 
admit the endorsement of Mr. Lewis on this check ? 

Mr. Wilson. — i^ot at all. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Then we will call Mr. Lewis for 
the purpose of proving the endorsement as soon as we can get him. 

Mr. Wilson. — But we are talking about letters that Lewis wrote 
to him and letters that he wrote to him, and incidentally you are 
getting in — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — We will discuss the admissibility 
when the evidence is offered. 

Mr. Wilson. — ■ I have no objection now, if you want to intro- 
duce the letter that the witness says he sent to Mr. Lewis ; we have 
no objection to that nov/ appearing in the record. 

The Chairman. — This is the letter of February 27th in refer- 
ence to the check being enclosed. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I will offer this as the letter it- 
self, not claiming of course that the copy is competent except 
by your admission. (Reading.) 

" February 27tJh 1913. 
" Mk. SxiMUEL Lewis, Jk., Senate Revision Clerh, Albany, N. Y.: 

" Mj Dear Sir. — Enclosed please find check for $250 as per 
my promise of yesterday. 

^' Yours very trulv, 
" (Signed) GEORGE H. KEI^tdALL, 

" President/' 

" P. S. — Please send me a copy of the act drawn yesterday 
and inform me if it was introduced to-day." 



32 

Q. That is the letter yon sent him ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is the letter you enclosed the check in ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The check that has been produced before you ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you have any further communication with Senator 
Stilwell prior to March Tth, that you recall ? A. Well, I don't 
recall it. My next recollection is that the next time — at the . 
next time — of course I am all broken iip, my recollection is that 
the next lime I saw Senator Stilwell w^as on March 19th. 

Q. Prior to that time had you had any communication with him ; 
from him or to him ? A. Am I allowed to refer to our letter book ? 

Q. I show you a letter — that is the quickest way, perhaps. Did 
you receive that letter from Senator Stilwell dated March 7th? 
A. I did, sir. 

Q. With his signature ? A. I have never seen him write that 
I recollect, but all his letters bear that signature ; that I can 
testify to. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Is that admitted? 

Mr. Stilwell. — That is admitted ; no question of that. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I would like to read this letter 
in evidence and offer it. (Eeading). 

''March 7th, 1913. 

^' George H. Kendall, President Neiv York BanJc Note Com- 
pany^ New Yorh, N. Y. : 
'■^ My Dear Mr. Kendall. — There will be a hearing before the 
Senate Codes Committee on bill introduced by myself at youii 
request, which is I^o. 1188, on March 19th, at three p. m. We 
are sending word to all others interested to this effect. 

Yours with great respect, 

S. J. STILWELL. 

Q. Did you receive that letter about that date ? A. I did. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I would like to introduce that in 
evidence, but first I have another letter which precedes that. I 
will withdraw it for the moment. 

Have you a letter dated March 4th, Senator ? One sent to you 
by Mr. Kendall ? 

Senator Stilwell. — I think I have one. General, but I think I 
have given it to you. 

Attorney-General Carmody.— Have you a copy ? 



33 

Senator Stilwell. — I will tell yon. This is from Mr. Kendall 
to me. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. Yon wonld have the orig- 
inal of that. 

Senator Stilwell. — Yes, I thonght I liad it with me. 

Attornej'-General Carmody. — That is not very important. I 
know I had it. I think that I have it right here. Yes, here it 
is. (Prodncing same.) 

Q. Did yon receive a letter abont March 4, 1913, or did yon 
send a letter March 1, 1913, to Senator Stilwell? (Handing wit- 
ness letter). Did yon send that letter to him with that signature 
on that date? A. I did. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I offer this letter. (Eeading.) 

March Uli, 1913. 
Hojs^. Stephen J. Stilw^ell, Senate Chamher, Albany, N. Y.: 

My Dear Sir.—- Mr. Lewis writes enclosing copies of bills and 
saying he has not received check. I mailed it February 27th. 
He also says that the bill has not been introduced in the Assembly. 
Will you please have it done. If not convenient, please notify 
me. 

Yours very truly, 

GEOKGE H. KE^^DALL, 

• President. 

I wonld like to have that marked as offered in evidence. 

Letter received and marked State's Exhibit ^o. 2 of this date. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I would now like to have the 
letter of March T, 1913, from Mr. Stilwell to Mr. Kendall, 
marked as introduced in evidence. 

Letter received and marked State's Exhibit 'No. 3 of this date. 

Q. On March 8,. 1913, did you send this letter to Senator Stil- 
well (reading) : 

'•'Hon. S. J. Stilwell, Senate Chamber, Albany, N. Y.: 

'^ My Dear Sir. — I have your favor of the 7th inst., and udll 
be on hand at the hearing of March, 19th. 
" Yours verv truly, 

" GEOEGE H. KENDALL." 



Senator Stilwell. — Tliat was liis bill. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That was his letter to you. I 
would like to have this letter marked as offered in evidence. This 
is a copy. 

Letter received in evidence and marked State's Exhibit 4 of 
this date. 

Q. Did you come to Albany on the 9th of March? A. I and 
Mr. Field came to Albany on the 9 th of March. 

Q. You and Mr. Field. Did you see Senator Stilwell and have 
any talk with him on that date ? A. I did. 

Q. Where and at what time ? A. Both in the Senate and in 
his room. 

Q. In his room at the Senate. At what time? A. I came 
directly from the train. I should think it was in the vicinity of 
noon. 

Q. Yes, you arri^-ed here on Avhat train ? A. I left New York 
at 8:30. 

Q. Go on and tell what occurred between you. What occurred 
between yourself and Senator Stihvell on March 19th, if any- 
thing, bearing on this subject ? A. The Senate was in session, 
or at least the room was occupied. I waited and went to lunch 
with him. 

Q. You went to lunch with whom? A. Mr. Field and Senator 
Stilwell, and we w^ent into the lunch room, and Sam Lewis was 
sitting at a table alone, as I recall it, and we joined him. 

Q. Well, what occurred ; did you have any conversation. 

The Chairman. — Just a moment. Who is Mr. Field ? 

The Witness. — The gentleman sitting right there (indicating). 

The Chairman. — I know — • 

The Witness. — Vice-President of the New York Bank Note 
Company. 

The Chairman. — Vice-President of the New York Bank Note 
Company. 

The Witness. — Yes, sir. Lie has been with me every time I 
have been here. 

The Chairman.— Will Mr. Field stand up ? 

(Mr. Field stands up.) 



35 

Q. Now, proceed with your narrative. Did anything occur 
between yon at that time^ at that hincheon, on the subject of your 
bill ? A. All that I can recollect at the moment is a discussion 
of the old objection of mine, that any redress under that bill 
would only be invoked by the District Attorney for the people of 
the State of J^ew York; that it left anyone else — that no one 
else could enforce its provisions. 

Q. You had at that time a bill that had been prepared? A. 
Had been prepared and printed. 

Q. Where is that bill ? A. I think you have it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — ^I want to offer it in evidence for 
the purpose of keeping track of it. AVell, w^e w^ill get that later. 

Q. Go on and tell what happened ? A. That is know^n as 
Senate Bill 1188. 

Q. Did you have a printed copy of the bill before you on this 
date, March 19th? 

Islr. Wilson. — AVe have a copy of that, if it will accommodate 
you. 

Q. I do not thiidv that is what you had at that time. Is that 
what you had (handing bill to witness) ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Look it over and be sure of it. AVas that bill produced and 
printed in that form and discussed by you and Senator Stihvell on 
March 19th? A. It v/as, sir. 

Q. Tell what you said about it? A. Why, the Senator said 
that a bill which carried a penalty of a misdemeanor could not 
be enforced by a suit by a private party, and that he Vv^ould have 
to look the matter up and see — that he would look the matter up 
and see if there could not be a way that an amendment could be 
devised by which any party aggrieved could bring suit under the 
bill as amended. 

Q. That is what you said to him ? A. ^N^o, that is what he said 
to me. 

Q. That is what he said to you, yes. Well, go on ? A. That 
is the substance. 

Q. Is that all that occurred at that time ? A. That is all I 
recollect at the moment. We sat there during the lunch hour. I do 
not remember — 

Q. AVas there anything else that occurred between yourself and 
Senator Stilwell on March 19th, or between you? 



u 

Mr. ^\''ilson. — General, won't you ask him to detail all of the 
conversation at that time? 

Attorney-General Carmodj. — I have. 

The Witness.— N'ot that I recollect. 

]\lr. Wilson. — I did not understand him to saj he has done it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. 

The Witness. — I think I have stated all, 

Mr. Wilson. — Have you stated all ? 

Attorney-General Carmodj-. — I have asked that question. 

Q. Have you stated all that was said in the conversation with 
Senator Stilwell ? A. All that was said. 

Q. All that took place between Mr. Field, Senator Stilwell and 
yourself? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Any one else present ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Whom ? A. Mr. Lewis, you are talking about ? 

Q. On March 19th, yes, when you were discussing that bill ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In the Senate restaurant ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. During luncheon ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have stated all that took place at that time? A. l^o, 
I have stated all I can recollect, because we were there during the 
entire luncheon hour, and it is very hard during the confusion 
here to present a continuous story of five, six or seven hours I 
spent with Mr. Stilwell. 

Q. You have presented that story and finished. Did you have 
any further talk with Senator Stilwell on March 19th on this 
subject ? A. ;N'ot that I recollect. That was the day I spoke on 
my own bill. 

Q. When did you next have any communication with him or 
conversation with him? A. Can I refer to his letters for dates; 
is that proper ? 

Q. What is the question ? A. You are asking me to testify 
regarding the date. Can I see his letter ? 

Q. I want to know first when there was any other communica- 
tion or conversation between yourself and Senator Stilwell; was 
it after March 19th ? A. Well, yes, sir. He wrote me — 

Q. I show you a letter dated March 21st. Did you receive that 
letter from Senator Stilwell? A. I did. 



37 

Q. About what time 't A, March 22(1^ 1 presume. If I am 
allowed to give the day of the week, I think I can identify it that 
way. I think I received it on Saturday. 

Q. You received it about that time '( A. I received it on a cer- 
tain Saturday, I think it was. 

Q. Was there anything enclosed with the letter? A. I believe 
there was one of the bills with the proposed amendment in pencil. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I oifer this letter in evidence. 

Q. Did you remendjer the day of the Avcek that the 19th of 
March came on? A. 1 think it was Wednesday. It is very 
difficult for me to check these all up. 

Q. Do you remember the day that the 21st came on, was March 
21st Friday? A. AVell, really, you will have to let me look at the 
calendar. 1 cannot remember things like that. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — (Reading). 

''March 21st, 1913. 
'^ Geokge H. Kendall, 71 Sixth avenue. New York City : 

'^ Dear Sir. — After speaking to you the other day about a civil 
suit, I looked up the law^ bearing on the matter and am convinced 
it can be accomplished by adding a section, which I have added to 
the enclosed bill. 

'^ I will be at my office, 200 Broadway, Monday next, at 3 P. M., 
if you desire to see me about a brief. 

" Respectfully yours, 

'' S. J. STILWELL." 

I would like to have that marked as offered in evidence. 
Letter received and marked State's Exhibit 5 of this date. 

Q. I show 3^ou Senate Bill 'No. 1188, with some writing on the 
bottom of it. Is that the bill you found enclosed in that letter ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that writing on it when it was received ? A. It was. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I oifer that in evidence. It is 
admitted that that is in the handwriting of Senator Stilwell. I 
offer it in evidence. 

Admitted in evidence and marked State Exhibit ISTo. G. 

Mr. Wilson. — Just read the writing into the record. 

Attorney-General Carmodv. — Read the bill ? 



38 

Mr. Wilson. — Iso, just the copy of the amendment. 

Attorney-General Carmody.— I wish to read into the record 
the insertion in pencil admitted to be in the handwriting of 
Senator Stilwell; after line 11 it occurs: '' Recoverable in a civil 
action by any person who will sue for the same, half thereof 
shall be paid to the State Treasury, such penalties shall be cumu- 
lative, and more than one penalty may be recovered in the same 
action by the same person in any court of competent jurisdiction." 

Q. Had there been any talk in any conversation between 
Senator Stilwell and yourself about a brief ? A. ^"0, sir. 

Q. Did vou call on Senator Stilwell after receiving that letter ? 
A. I did. ^ 

Q. When did you call on him ? A. The ensuing Monday. 

Q. You called on Stilwell where? A. 261 Broadway. 

Q. That is his place of business ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That was on Monday ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 261 Broadway, that is the address given in his letter to 
you of March 21st ? A. May I know the date of that letter ? 

Q. March 21, 1913? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You are sure you called on him Monday follov/ing the 21st 
of March ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What time did you see him ? A. 3 o'clock. 

Q. That is on the Monday following the 21st? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At about 3 o'clock in the afternoon ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What took place between you? A. I met him as I was 
entering the street door, went with him in the elevator to his 
place of business. We entered his private office and he shut the 
door and I said to him ^' There is no brief," and he said, ^'I 
know that." 

Mr. Wilson. — We do not get his language, whether he said, 
" There is no brief," or '' This is no brief." 

Attorney-General Carmody. — '^ There is no brief," he said. 

The Witness. — I am a little doubtful in my mind whether I 
said '^ There is no brief," or he said, '^ There is no brief." One 
or the other of us said, '^ There is no brief," and he replied after 
that, I don't know which said it. 

Mr. AVilson. — Suppose he waits until he recalls whether — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I suggest counsel waits until the 
witness gets a cbance to stjite. 



r 39 

The Chairman. — Let the witness state it in his own way. 

Q. Do jou now recall whether you stated " There is no brief " 
or whether Senator Stilwell stated '' There is no brief? A. I do 
not. 

Q. Whoever said it, Avas that the beginning of the conversa- 
tion ? A. That was the beginning of the conversation. 

Q. The first thing that was said ? A. Yes. 

Q. And was anybody else present besides yon and Senator 
Stilwell ? A. Absolutely no one. 

Q. And that was in his private ofiice ? A. That was in his 
private office. 

Q. 'Now, proceed. A. And he said ''I want to see you on 
this matter." I said I realized that by the fact that there was 
no brief," and he said '' We may as well get down to business. 
He said " Four of my committeemen want $500 a piece to re- 
port that bill out of committee." I was much nonplussed by it. 
I realized the propriety — 

Mr. Wilson. — I object. 

Q. Tell us what took place; we don't want your feelings; we 
simply want narrative of what took place. A. I said to him 
'^ That is only to report it out of committee ?" And he said 
'^ Yes," and I said " Report it out of committee into the 
Senate ? " And he said '' Yes." And I said ''If I should pay 
you that $2,000 would that insure its passing ?" He said '^ No, 
that is reporting it out," and I said to him '^ Is there not an- 
other committee on Codes on the other side of the house of the 
Assembly ? " And he said '' Yes, there is another - committee 
there," and I said '^ Would that include the House side of re- 
porting it out ? " He said '^ No, and it might cost you some- 
thing." 

Q. It might what? A. '^ It might cost you something." 
Q. You drop your voice at the end of the sentence. I could 
not hear it, " It might cost you something," A. Yes, and I asked 
him how much and he said if anything he did not know, but 
that he was going to Albany that night, and I forget whether he 
said he would be here at 8 o'clock or he was going at 8 o'clock, 
and that he would canvass the Assembly Committee and find 
out what if anything it would cost me, and the next morning he 
would send me a teleoTam in which there was a number, 



40 

and if it cost me anything that was to be the number of hundred 
dollars. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. That was to be the nnniber of hundred dollars? A. "^'es, 
sir. 

By Attorney-General Carmody : 

Q. The number of hundred dollars for Avhat?' A. Having it 
reported out of the Committee on Codes on the House side of the 
Legislature. 

Q. In the Assembly? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Anything else said? A. Yes. I told him that I was sur- 
prised at the situation because I was impressed with the belief that 
when the Governor sent me to him with the proposed legislation 
or that it was proposed to give me relying on the merits of the 
case and that even as it was that his demand indicated nothing 
to me, and he said that I need not protest about that because the 
Exchange had fixed things so up here that the bill would be 
reported out of the Committee, or had been reported out of Com- 
mittee on the House side, had passed the House or would pass it, 
and that it had or would come out of the Committee on Judiciary 
on the Senate side but that the bill would be killed on the floor. 
It would never be heard of again after it got on the floor. 

Q. What bill was he speaking of ? A. That was not my bill. 

Q. That was the Stock Incorporation bill, w^as it not ? A. Yes, 
sir. I said that if money was the thing that was used to get these 
things through, that I might as well stay out, keep mine and stay 
out of the competition, as the Exchange could put up one hundred 
or a thousand dollars to my one, and he said that '' the Exchange 
has not put up anything on your bill." I said, '^ Do you mean 
on the other ? " He said, '^ Yes, and there is no kick coming on the 
size of your amount." 

Q. On what? A. 'No kick coming on the size, the amount — 
the barrel. I think once the barrel, once the amount. 

Mr. Wilson — ^Which was it, barrel or amount? 

Q. Do you know which he said ? A. I just stated. I think he 
said it twice, once barrel and once amount. That was substantially 
all that occurred there that I recollect at the present moment. He 
S^id that he would go to Albany that night and wire me what, if 



41 

anything, it would cost me to report my bill out of the Committee 
on Codes. 

Q. Have you now stated all the conversation that you recall that 
occurred between yourself and Senator Stilwell on this occasion ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he say in that conversation " I don't want anything 
for myself, but four of my committee men want $500 apiece to 
report the bill out of committee?" A. Yes, sir; he said '^ My 
committee consists of nine members, and I don't v/ant anything 
for myself; four of the committee men want $500 apiece to 
report that bill out of committee." 

Q. ^ow did you ssij to him that when the Governor sent you 
to him, that you supposed that the revision or the Bill Drafting 
Department was to draft the bill ? A. What date ? 

Q. On this date, Monday, in his office in 'New York ? A. Yes, 
sir — no, that is not right. I said to him in effect that when the 
Governor sent me to him, I supposed that I was to have the legis- 
lation because I merited it, and not as a matter of money. 

Q. Was there anything said in that conversation about the Bill 
Drafting Department? A. I don't think so, sir; except in rela- 
tion to that copy of it penciled by him. 

Q. Then I will ask you if there was anything said in any of 
the previous conversations on the subject of the Bill Drafting 
Committee of the Senate, drafting the bill ? A. Yes, sir. Don't 
you remember? 

Q. I do not recall that you have referred to it. A. During 
the hearing on the Moving Picture Show Bill, he called me out 
and I mentioned it to him then. 

Q. Well now, tell us what you said. I do not think you stated 
that when you went over the conversation. That was on the 19th 
of February. 

Mr. Wilson. — That is objected to. IN'ow if he is going back to 
that conversation, we think he should go back to it and identify 
the conversation, and state that he now recalls that he did not give 
all of that conversation. 

The Chairman. — We will overrule the objection. Go ahead. 

The Witness. — Well, what happened at that conversation ? 

Q. I want to know what was said on the subject of the Bill 
Drafting Department on that occasion, February 19th, if that is 



42 """^'"'^ ■" " ^ " ■ 

the time ? A. I told him that I was surprised and especially so 
as the Governor had sent me to him and that I presumed that it 
would not cost me — that 1 wouldn't have to pay for the thing, for 
the drafting of it, as the Governor had mentioned to me that 
there was a department here for that purpose. 

Q. You have now narrated all of the conversation that took 
place at Senator Stilwell's office on Monday in N^ew York City? 
A. All that I remember, sir, at the moment. 

Q. Did you receive a telegram the following day, or after that 
— that is the following day, on March 25th? A. I did, sir. 

Q. I show you this telegram (handing to witness) and ask you 
if that is the telegram you received ? A. It is, sir. 

Q. Do you know at what time you received it ? A. My recollec- 
tion is about noon. Can I refer to that and see (looking at 
telegram) — 12.25 P. M. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Is it admitted that this telegram 
was sent (handing to Mr. Wilson) ? 

The Witness. — May two of my leading witnesses be provided 
with seats ? 

The Chairman. — The ,Sergeant-at-Arms is instructed to find 
out who the witnesses are to this proceeding and see that they are 
seated. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It is admitted that this telegram 
was sent on March 25, 1913, by Senator Stilwell, from Albany, 
to George H. Kendall, at 75 Sixth Avenue, 'New York: ^^ 15 is 
the correct number. Stilwell." 

Mr. Wilson. — And that it was sent at what time ? 

Q. Eeceived you think about 2.25? A. I would not locate it 
any closer than about the noon hour. 

Mr. Wilson." — The telegram shows what time it was sent. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — 12.25 it is marked. 

Senator Griffin.^ Does that read "16 is the correct niunber," 
or ^'15 is your correct number? " 

Attorney-General Carmody. — ^'15 is the correct number." 

The telegram was received in evidence and marked State Exhibit 7. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Is Mr. Van Zant here ? Have 
you the original telegram here ? 



43 

Senator Brown. — As long as it is not questioned, I would not 
take anj time on it. ' 

Mr. Wilson. — I do not understand there is any dispute over the 
telegram. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I would like to offer the original 
in evidence. 

The original telegram was received and marked State Exhibit 
7a. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The officers of the company want 
to keep this. I think we should return it to the company. 

Senator Blauvelt. — Is he under subpoena ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. 

Senator Blauvelt. — You may keep the telegram. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — We wall see that you get it back. 
You may take the copy if you wish. 

Mr. Wilson. — Will you let us see the original ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes, with pleasure (handing to 
counsel). 

Mr. Wilson. — Is there any change ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — ISTot a particle. It will show the 
time it was sent. 

The Chairman. — I do not see any reason for the original, as 
long as we have the copy and there is no objection to it. 

Senator Brown. — I would like to have the committee look at it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Dated filed 12:10; filed at 
Capitol, Albany. All right ; you may take it along. 

Mr. Wilson. — Just a moment. I would like to have it appear 
that it also shows on it " Charge it to the clerk of the Senate," 
and it says " Charged," and also the date when it was sent. That 
is the time, the hour. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It is marked '^ Charged." 

The Witness. — May I see that telegram a moment, sir? 

iittorney-General Carmody. — Yes (handing to witness). 



44 

Mr. Wilson. — We ask to have it appear that it is sent up to 
the regular department through the hands of the clerk, to be 
charged — whatever the telegram shows for itself. 

The Witness. — The reason I asked to see this telegram is that 
the one that I received is misdated one month and I wanted to 
call attention to it. That it is dated February and that I struck 
that out and put " Mar." above it, as that was the date I received 
it, but I see the original telegram is rightly dated. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It is understood now the original 
is marked '' Charged." 

The Chairman. — The only thing I think that is entitled to 
appear on the record is what appeared on the telegram at the 
time it was sent. Whatever marks the company put on that tele- 
gram after it was sent from here I do not think are material. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Then the stamp upon it 
" Charged " is not admitted. 

Mr. Byrne. — Yes ; in fact all of the evidence on that telegram 
is relevant as to what it contained at the time it was sent. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Step aside a moment please. 

W. H. Van Sant, a witness called in behalf of the Attorney- 
General, being duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Direct examination: 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. What is you name? A. W. H. Van Sant. 

Q. What is your business ? A. Manager Western Union Tele- 
graph Company. 

Q. You produced an original telegram, dated March 25, 1913, 
signed ^^'Stilwell" under subpoena,? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Look at that telegram (handing to witness) and tell us if 
any marks were placed on it after it was deposited with the com- 
pany for transmission? A. 'No; sir; only the charge. 

Q. That was stamped on by the company ? A. By the com- 
pany. 

Q. The date of it was put on ? A. At the time it was received 
at the Capitol window. 

The Chairman. — What is the date that telegram was sent ? 



45 

The Witness. — ]\[arch 2'5th, sent at 12 :12 direct to ^ew York. 

Mr. ¥/ilson. — Let me see it jnst a moment (telegram handed 
to eonnsel). 

Cross examination: 
Ey Mr. Wilson: 

Q. ISTow, near the right hand comer of the telegram, in red 
letters is stamped "Charged?" A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What does that mean ? A. That means that it is charged 
to the 'Senate. 

Q. Now it is also rubber stamped March 25, 1913? What 
does that mean,? A. It is stamped that? 

Q. Yes. A. That is stamped — all of 'the messages * are 
stamped every day by the clerk. 

Q. Then it is again stamped " Capitol." A. That shows it 
was taken in at the Capitol office. 

Q. Then it says *' Charged to Clerk of the Senate?" A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. W'ho put that on ? A. The charge stamp we put on. 

Q. Then it went to the Clerk of the Senate or to his office ? 
A. ]^et me see, please, and I £'an tell. 

Mr. Vv^ilson. — I am trying to demonstrate it \yas charged to 
the State and not to the Senate. 

The Yv itness. — That charge w^as put on either by the Clerk of 
the Senate or some officer of the Senate who had that authority. 
It is marked '' Charged." That is how we come to know it was 
charged to the -Senate. 

Q. And that is the custom wnth the public business ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I object to that. 

IBy Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Did you make that endorsement on there ? A. 'No. sir. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I object to this testimony. 

Mr. Wilson. — If there is to be any controversy over this what- 
ever, then T would like to have the telegram remain here, so that 
the Senators mav examine it. 



46 

The Chairman.— Some of the Senators desire to look at the 
telegram before you take it away. 

Attorney-General Carmody.— JSJ'ow, Mr. Kendall, will you take 
the stand again ? 

George H. Kendall resumed the stand. 
Direct examination continued. 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Now, what did you do after receiving that telegram? A. 
I did some tall thinkino-. 

Mr. Byrne. — We object and ask that that be stricken out. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out. 

Q. Tell us what you did after jo\i received the telegram ? x\. 
The first thing I did was talked the matter over with Mr. FiekL 

Mr. Wilson. — That we move to strike out. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I do not suppose there is any 
objection that he talked it over; Ave do not want what you said. 

Q. Did you send any communication to Senator Stilwell after 
you received it? A. I did. 

Q. When ? A. That afternoon. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Have you a telegram, Senator, 
that he sent on March 25th. 

Senator Stihvell. — I never received a telegram from him. 

Q. You did send a telegram to him on March 25th? 

Mr. Wilson. — That I object to as not the best evidence. 

The Chairman. — Objection overruled. 

Br. Byrne. — Exception. 

The Witness. — Will you please tell me the day of the week, 
March 25th? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Will you step aside, please? 

W. M. Pruyn, a witness called in behalf of the Attorney- 
General, being duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Direct examination by Attorney-General Carmody: 



47 

Q. What is your business ? A. Manager Postal Telegraph at 
Albany. 

Q. Can you tell' us whether on March 25th a telegram was 
received, unsigned, addressed to Stephen J. Stilwell, Senate 
Chamber, Albany, a copy of which I show you (handing to wit- 
ness) ? 

Mr. Wilson. — That we object to. 

The Chairman. — Objection overruled. A. I think there was. 

Q. You think there was. Have you any doubt about it? A. 
'No, I haven't. There was. 

Q. And is this a copy that I show you ? 

Mr. W^ilson.— That is objected to as irrelevant and incompetent. 

The Chairman. — Objection overruled. A. It is. 

Q. Will you tell us how you keep records of such messages? 
A. How we do ? 
Q. Yes, sir. 

Senator Brown.- — Cannot the Senate Committee save time by 
not going into the details of how they keep the records ? Is the 
telegram questioned ? 

Mr. Wilson.- — Yes. 

The Chairman. — You question that ? 

Mr. Wilson.— Yes. 

The Chairman. — Proceed. 

Q. How do you keep the record of telegrams received and de- 
livered ? A. When a telegram is received, water copy is made of 
it. The original message is put on a delivery sheet and given to 
a messenger boy and sent to the addressee. 

Q. Was a telegram of which this is a copy, which I hold in my 
hand and which you have identified, given to a messenger boy 
and sent to Senator iStilwell ? 

Mr. Vv'ilson. — That is objected to as incompetent and irrel- 
evant, and the witness not being competent to state. Will you 
let us see the telegram for a moment. (Telegram handed to Mr. 
Wilson). Will you indulge us just a single moment. We have 
never seen this telegram, but certain things have been pub- 
lished — 



48 

Attorney-General Carmodv. — I object to that going on the 
record ? 

The Chairman. — Strike it from the record. 

Q. While they are examining, have you a record of the mes- 
sages delivered by the messengers who delivered them ? A. I have. 

Q. And receipts for them? A. I have. 

Q. Will you produce the receipt for the delivery of this mes- 
sage? A. I will. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Then you may stand aside till 
you do so. We will excuse you. Do so right away. 

The Chairman. — I don't think he imderstands you want the 
boy who deli^^ered the message. 

Q. Do you understand v^'e want the boy who delivered the 
message with vhe book upon which the receipt appears for the 
message ? A. Yes, sir. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. You will produce that later? A. Sir ^ 
Q. You will have him here? A. Yes, sir. 
The Chairnnni. — All right, go ahead. 

By Attorney-General Carmody : 

Q. How long will it take you to get the boy up here ? A. Pos- 
sibly thirty minutes or twenty minutes. 1 am not certain he is 
in the office. He may be. 

The Chairman. — Have him here at 2 o'clock, Mr. Pruyn. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Mr. Stilwell, we Avill pass over 
that for the present. 

Geoege H. Tvexdall resumes the stand. 
Examination continued by Attorney-General Carmody : 

Q. When was the next communication between yourself and 
Senator Stilwell ? A. That same afternoon. 

Q. Yes. A. Senator Stilwell called me up in a very short time 
after I sent that telegram. 

Senator Brown. — After what ? 



49 

Attoriiev-Gc'Jieral Caniiody. — After lie sent the telegram. 
The Witness. — Tliat is the l)est of mv recollection. 

Q. Called yon np in vrluit way ? A. He asked me what the 
telegram meajK. - 

Q. On the piione ^ A. Yes, from Albany. 

Q. Yon had a talk with him on the phone on that same day? 
A. Yes. 

Q. That is, the 25th ^ A. 1 think it was Tuesday, the 25th of 
]\{arch, 1 think ; 1 would like to see a calendar. 

Q. It was the day when yon sent your telegram to him? 
A. Yes. 

The Chairman. — Do I understand that you have got the date 
of this last telegram in yet ? 

Attorney-General Carmod}'. — We got the fact that there was 
one received on the 25th; we have got the date, but we have not 
got proof of the delivery yet. 

The Chairman. — That was what date '( 

Attorney-General Carmody. — March 25th. Xow we have the 
telephone communication, as he said, from Senator Stilwell at 
Albany. 

The Y\^itness. — Yes, I was in Xew York and he was in Albany. 

Q. Did you recognize Senator StilwelFs voice ? A. I did. 

Q. And know that it was Senator Stilwell that you were talk- 
ing to ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State what occurred ? A. Why, the Senator asked me what 
my telegram meant — 

Q. Just a moment ; give his language ; that is not what lie said ; 
you are giving the sul)3tance of it. A. " What does your telegram 
mean ? " 

Q. That is what he said, is it ? A. Yes, sir ; and I replied^ 
" Just what it says." Shall I tell you about the arrangements I 
made with Mr. Field — 

Q. Go ahead and tell everything that took place over the phone. 
A. I said, " Just what it says." Well, he said, " What is that? " 
I said, " Supposing I pay you $3,500 ; what certainty is there that 
that sum of money will do me any good ? Is it for merely report- 
ing the bill out of the two committees ? " And he said, '' Yes." 
Then T said, '' My telegram seems to me a pretty good argument 



50 

against paying tlie money/' and lie said, '' Well, what will yon 
do, will you pay the money or not ? '' And I said to him, " I don't 
see any use of paying it, and he said, '' Well," — I said '' Espe- 
cially as it covers nothing particularly," and he said, ^' Well, if 
you are not willing to pay me the $3,500 in advance, there is 
nothing doing on reporting those bills out of committee." 

Q. Can 3^ou tell us about what time it was when this talk took 
place. You- said it was a short time after the telegram was sent ? 
A. It is only a guess, sir ; I should say perhaps four o'clock. 

Senator Pollock. — Did the witness say he called up Senator 
Stilwell? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — ISTo, Senator Stilwell called him 
up after receiving this telegram now in question. 

Q. Was that all that took place between you on the telephone ? 
A. ISTo. 

Q. What else ? A. Well, I will have to say it in my way and 
then you can stop me. I made arrangements with Mr. Field — 

Mr. Wilson. — That is objected to. 

Q. I want what happened ? A. Without giving the reasons over, 
I traveled over that ground with him two or three times. 

Mr. Wilson. — I move to strike that out. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That may be stricken out. 

Q. I ask you was that conversation that you have now given 
repeated over the phone ? A. Yes, I kept coming back at him. 

Q. Tell us what you said? A. Practically that same con- 
versation. 

Mr. Wilson. — We object to it. 

Q. 'No. tell it, we want the conversation. They are entitled to 
have it? A. I said, '' If I were to pay you that $3,500, it does 
not really do me any good, certainly, and I am surprised that it 
would cost me anything anyway, and it is only merely for report- 
ing the thing out of committee." 

Q. How many times did you say that you — did you go over 
that ? A. I covered that ground with him. I kept it up as long as 
I could, to keep him talking. 

Q. When Senator Stilwell first called you up, state whether you 
sent for him ? A. I did. 

Q. Bv whom ? 



51 

Mr. Wilson. — That is objected to as immaterial. 

The Chairman. — Objection overrnled. 

Mr. Wilson. — • Exception. 

The Yv itness. — • Shall I answer, sir ? 

Attorney-General Carmodj. — Yes. ; 

The Chairman. — Go ahead. 

The Witness. — • Mr. George A. Field. 

Q. Vice-President ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he arrive before the conversation was terminated ? A. 
Unhappily not, just as it w^as terminated. 

Q. Yes. You were where ? A. In my private office. 

Q. And Mr. Field came in just as the conversation was finished? 
A. 'No, he was upstairs and came down, arriving at my door just 
too late to get to his telephone and hear. 

Q. Where was Mr. Field — 

Mr. Byrne. — I move to strike out that evidence as incompetent. 

The Chairman. — The latter part of that. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I think " He got to the door as 
the conversation w^as terminated," I suppose is competent. 

Q. Do you know where he was when you sent for him ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Where ? A. On the third floor of our building. 
Q. W^hom did you send for him by ? 

Mr. Wilson. — That is objected to as immaterial. 

• The Chairman. — Well — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I think this has an important 
bearing on the subject of the conversation. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. Proceed. 

The Witness. — The minute — 

Q. No ; whom did you send by for Senator Stilwell ? A. 
Anybody that heard my voice in my office. 

Q. Did you call out to anybody in particular? A. I jumped 
through my office door, and I said, — 

Mr. Byrne. — I object. 



52 

Q. We don't want v/hat von said. We want what you did. 
A. I ran throngli the door of my private office into the main 
office. 

Q. Yes. A. And I said, send for Mr. Field. 

Q. 'No, not Avhat yon said. Did you see somehody there that 
you talked to ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Whom ? A. 1 saw somehody — I saw somehody — 

Q. And. you addressed your remarks to anybody there ^ A. 
To anybody who could hear. 

Q. Do you know, as a matter of fact, avIio it was that went for 
Mr. Field? A. Xo one went for him. They telephoned to the 
other system upstairs. 

Q. That w^as all that occurred at that time ^ A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was there any later conversation over the phone with Sena- 
tor Stilwell ? A. iv ot that day. 

Q. E'ot that day. No further communication or letters of anj 
kind ? A. ISTot that I recollect. I am sure not. 

Q. Was there the day following? A. There was. 

Q. State how that started? A. I called up Senator StilwelL 

Q. Where were you ? A. In my private office. 

Q. And did you get him ? A. I did. 

Q. At what place? A. The Capitol at Albany. 

Q. At w^hat time was that? A. At a gness, half past ten. 

Q. You had a talk w^ith him, did you? A. 1 did. 

The Chairman. — What date was thi^ conversation.? 
Attorney-General Carmody. — The 26tli of ^Marcli. 

Q. You think that is about half past ten. Have you a distinct 
recollection as to the time ? A. As to the time ? 

Q. Yes. A. Oh, I could not — 

Q. It might have been at some other hour ? A. I made no 
memorandum. Yes, I think there was a memorandum made of 
that conversation. 

Q. Had you made any arrangement before calling up Senator 
Stilwell at this time to connect anybody else on your phone at 
your office? A. Both at this time and at the conversation the 
preceding day. 

Q. On the preceding day you also had made an arrangement ? 
A. But that failed. 

Q. But you didn't get llr. Field there ? 

Mr. Bvrne. — ^I ask that be stricken out about the failure. 



53 



Attorney-General Carmody. — If he made an arrangement and 
had the office connect it np, that is all we ask for. 

The Chairman. — Strike ont the last part. 

Q. Was there a phone connected np with your phone when you 
talked with Senator Stilwell on the 26th at your office? A. Yes, 
sir. We can always connect. 

Q. And that connection remained since the day before, the 
25th? A. Oh, no. We can always connect on a moment. 

Q. Who made that connection? A. I think Mr. Field did. 

Mr. Byrne. — I object, and ask that that be stricken out. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. 

The Chairman. — Objection sustained. Do you know who 
made that connection ? 

The Witness. — Xo, sir ; not positively. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — If he don't know it, Ave don't 
want it. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out. 

Q. Did you know the connection was made ? A. Oh, yes, sir. 

Q. You did know that. State what took place between your- 
self and Senator Stilwell ? A. I told Senator Stilwell I had been 
thinking the matter over, and that I was not going to be thrown 
down his way. 

Q. Let me remind you. I have asked you to narrate the con- 
versation, not to give the substance of it, but to give it in the 
precise language if you can. What did you say to Senator Stil- 
well when you first called him up ? A. The conversation w^as 
so long — 

Q. What did you first say to him ? A. I know I have a record 
of it here. 

Mr. Byrne. — Well now — 

Q. Will you answer my question, please. What was the first 
thing you said to him ? Did you say '^ Is this Senator Stilwell ? " 
A. I was going to say that very thing. 

Q. You did say that, did you ? A. Yes, I said, ^^ Is this Sena- 
tor Stilwell ? " '^ 

Q. What answer did you get ? A. " Yes." 

Q. He ^^aid, " Yes." A. Yes. 



54 

Q. i\ow go on. Wliat did voii say ? A. I said to him I had 
been thinking tliis matter over, and I did not intend to be thrown 
down or balk his way ; that I did not think there was any inten- 
tion on the part of the Governor that I should meet with the 
propositions that he had put before me nor the denial of reporting 
my bills out of the Committee unless I paid him, and as he says 
the Committee on the other side of the House, as well. If ^^ He " 
— by that I mean ^' you/' Senator Stilwell, that I had been in 
this fight for thirty-four years, and seeing that I had gotten so 
far in the matters at Albany that I did not intend that he should 
balk me, and what I intended to do in the matter was to send to 
the Governor and to every member of the House and of the 
Senate, the following telegram: 

'' Stilwell refuses to report my bill out of Committee 
unless I pay him Two thousand dollars and Fifteen hundred 
dollars for the Committee on Codes. Have already paid him 
$250 for drawing the bill. What shall I do to get justice? '' 

I said, '^ Now, Senator, I will give you to-day to report my bill 
out of your Committee. If you don't, I will let those tele- 
grams go." 

Mr. Stilwell said : " 'Now, Mr. Kendall, that is not fair. You 
know I have done a great deal for you, and really been your 
friend." Mr. Stilwell said, '' :N^ow, "^Mr. Kendall, that is"^ not 
fair — 

Q. That is not what ? A. Fair. '' That I have done a great 
deal for you, and really been your friend." 

I said, " Yes, but now you hold me up and won't do anything^ 
further that you ought to do unless I pay you $3,500." I said^ 
'^ You can do as you please, but all this thing will come out. 
I will rip the thing wide open and tell the Governor and the entire 
Legislature, unless you report that bill out during to-day." 

He said, '' Well, give me a little time on it, and I will see my 
Committee men. See what I can do about it," but he also said, 
^^ On the other side of the House I absolutely cannot do any- 
thing." He said, ^' If it is dependent on your consent — if your 
not sending those telegrams is dependent on my getting your bill 
out of the House Committee through m.e, why I will tell you now 
I cannot do it." 

" Well," I said, '' do as you like. I will send those telegrams 
to every legislator in Albany, if you don't, commencing with your 



55 

own Committee. Do just as voii like. Make it as short as you 
like." I said, '' You can call me up in fifteen minutes and tell 
me what von wish to do ahout this." 

He said, '' Well, give me more time than that.'' I said, '^ All 
right. Go ahead."' 

Q. So he did call me up later. I have forgotten the hour, and 
said, " On mv side of the House it is all right. We will report 
that out today." 

Then I said to him, '' On the same penalty you will report that 
out of the other side of the House. Do as you please ahout it^ 
those telegrams go. I don't want to hurt you, hut I am not going 
to he halked hy you now\" 

" Well," he said, " give me a little time on it." I said, '^ All 
right. Very well. What do you want? " And he said, ^^ I will 
telephone you tomorrow." 

Q. Is that all you recall ? A. Wait a minute — oh, no — 
wait a minute. I was trying to think whether that same day 
or not — oh yes, it was that same day I think — T said, '^ Very 
well, I will call you up." 

Mr. Wilson. — ]\Iay I understand what is going on ? 

Mr. Byrne. — What connection has this with the other con- 
versation ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It is the same conversation he 
was telling. 

]\f r. Wilson. — He says he recalls some other time. 

.\ttorney-General Carmody. — Oh, no, the same day. 

The Witness. — I am trying to recall it. It is pretty difficult 
to recall this. 

Q. The same conversation ? A. The same conversation. He 
asked me for more time, and I said, ^' Very well. I will call you up 
at five and six o'clock." He said, '' All right. Call me up, and 
I will let you know." I called him up at five o'clock and got 
no connection. 

0. I want all of the conversation that took place at this time 
hetween yourself and Senator Stilwell. Have you stated it all ? 
A. Undoubtedly not. It was a long conversation. 

Q. Have you stated all you recall ? A. Oh, wait a moment. 
I recall something else. I said, '' Senator take a pencil and write 



56 

down this telegram^ and see what I am saying to you. He said, 
^' Wait a moment ", and I did. I said, "" Get a piece of paper " — 

Mr. Byrne. — Is this the conversation of the day previous, or 
is the conversation the witness is now giving the second conver- 
sation ? 

The Chairman. — I understand this is the conversation Mr. 
Kendall had over the phone on March 26th, with Mr. Stilwell, 
beginning at ten o'clock in the morning. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He has not stated any other, and 
has not been asked to state any other. 

Mr. Wilson. — Only one conversation ? 

Q. You are talking about the conversation on the 26th over 
the phone. 'Eow proceed ? A. That is the date I threatened 
him. 

Q. Yes. K. I told him to take a pencil and take down the 
telegram, or a piece of paper, I forget which, and he said, '^ Wait 
a moment," and then I dictated slowly, he apparently writing at 
the other end of the phone. 

Mr. Byrne. — I ask that that be stricken out, '' apparently." 

The Chairman. — Strike out that, ^' He apparently writing at 
the other end of the phone." 

The Witness. — Then I cannot say whether he was or not. 
I did not see him. 

Q. Did you have before you a copy of the paper or message 
you transmitted to him over the phone ? A. I did. 

Q. And read from it? A. I did. 

Q. Do you know where that is ; where the memorandum is 
that you had ? 

The Chairman. — That is the memorandum of the message. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes, from which he read. 

The Chairman. — That he was going to send out if Mr. Stilwell 
did not comply ? 

Attorney- General Carmody. — Yes. 

Q. If you have got it, produce it ? A. I think you have it. 
I thought I gave it to you. 

Q. Have you got the paper from which you read, or has Mr. 



57 

Eield ? A. Apparently not, sir, but I am able to testify from it, 
from memory accurately. 

Q. Then you have not got that with you here, the paper from 
which you have read ? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. You have given the substance of it ? A. ISTo, sir, I have 
given it verbatim ad literatim. 

The Chairman. — I would like to ask a question. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Did you dictate this telegram you were going to send out 
before you had a conversation with Senator Stilwell ? A. Yes. 
And showed it to Field and somebody else. 

Q. Before you had the telephone conversation ? A. Yes, sir. 
I told him I was going to do it. 

Q. You read from that same paper over the phone ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

By Attorney-General Carmody : 

Q. Do you know whether or not your conversation with Senator 
Stilv>^ell on the 26th was taken down by anybody in your office? 
A. I do knov/, sir. 

Q. By whom? 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that on the ground it is incompetent, 
irrelevant and immaterial. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

Mr. Byrne. — Exception. 

A. Mr. Field. 

Q. After the conversation, did you see a memorandum that was 
taken down by Mr. Field? A. I did. 

Q. Was it as the conversation occurred, verbatim? 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that as incompetent, irrelevant and 
immaterial. 

The Chairman. — Repeat that question again. 

Q. Was it as the conversation occurred, verbatim? 

The Chairman. — ^Will the stenographer read the previous ques- 
tion. 

Previous question read. 



'58 

Mr. Byrne. — That is objected to as incompetent, irrelevant 
and immaterial. 

Attornej-General Carinodv. — I want to introduce Mr. Field^s 
letter. 

The Chairman. — Objection overruled. 
Mr. Byrne. — Exception. 
A. Yes. 

Senator Griffin. — At this point I would like to ask a question. 

By Senator Griffin : 

Q. AVas this memorandum he speaks of taken in shorthand or 
longhand? A. He writes about half of both. He studied 
stenography at one time. He does not write it out in full. 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that answer. 

The witness. — He studied years ago stenography, not a good 
stenographer. Cannot depend on him. 

Q. When he showed you this memorandum, did you under- 
stand it ? A. Yes, he read it over to me. 

The Chairman.- — ■ Proceed, counsel. 

By Attorney-General Carmody : 

Q. Have you stated all you recall that occurred in the conversa- 
tion? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. If you recall anything else, will you state it ? Did he tell 
you that the Codes Committee of the Senate had a meeting that 
afternoon, in the conversation ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What did he say on that subject? A. Oh, as I have stated 
before, it was all ready, and it would pass the Committee, as he 
had canvassed it. 

Q. Bo you recall anything else you left out ; did he say, '' I will 
call you up to-morrow ? " A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What did you say ? A. Why I said, " Very well.'^ 

Q. You said what? A. ^^ Very well." 

Q. Is that what you said? A. As close as I recollect now. 

Q. Did he call you up again that day? A. As I believe I 
previously testified, he did. 

Q. I am questioning you about the conversation that took place 
over the phone on the day when you told Senator Stilwell tliat 



59 

yon were going to send ont this telegram if he did not get these 
'bills ont of Committee. I v/ill ask you if in that conversation? 
A. There were two of them as I recollect it. 

Q. The first conversation ? A. ^Mien I called him up ? 

Q. Yes, when you called him up ? A. We have the days — w^e 
have passed that. 

Q. 'No, we are on that, it was in that conversation. 

Mr. Bynie. — I thought he was talking about two conversations. 

Q. The first conversation, that is the one we are still talking 
about; in that first conversation was there anything said about 
his calling you up in the morning ( A. Yes, he told me to call 
him up. 

Q. The first time that was over the 'phone ? A. You mean 
when I threatened him ? 

Q. Yes. A. Threatened him the first time? 

Q. Yes. A. I think you are a little at fault on it. 

Q. I am asking you, I am not testifying; when did he say he 
"was going to call you up ? A. The first time that I threatened 
him I suggested that he call me up in fifteen minutes and tell 
me his mind. 

Q. Yes. A. And he said '^ No, give me more time than that/' 
and I believe I have already testified here that he did call me up 
later in the day. 

Q. Just w^ait a minute. In that conversation did he say ^' I v/ill 
call you up to-morrow morning?" And did you say, ^^ That 
v^on't do ; I must know to-day V^ A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is what I am trying to get at. Did that occur in the 
first conversation ? A. Yes, that is when I said that would not do. 

Q. Proceed from there and tell us what happened. A. If my 
recollection is right on it he called me up — 

Q. We have not got through with this yet ? A. The first time. 

Q. I am talking about the first conversation. He said I will 
call you up to-morrow morning. You said ^^ That won't do, I must 
know^ to-day." What followed ? 

Mr. Wilson. — We object because the witness said he gave all 
the conversation then and he proceeded to the next one. The 
attorney says now we are not satisfied and want him to go back 
and give it again. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Tlie attorney does not say he ^-^ 
not satisfied; the attornev savs ho wants to know all that was r^ai'i. 



60 

The Witness. — As I recollect it I have stated everything that 
occurred at that first conversation heretofore in this examination. 

Q. Yon have told all that happened ? A. Yes. 

Q. What next occurred ? A. He called me up at 4 o'clock let 
us say, and told me that it was all right regarding his Committee. 

Q. How many conversations did you have over the 'phone with 
Senator Stilwell on that day "( A. I should say two, sir. 

Q. When v/as the second one ? A. At 4 o'clock. 

Q. Was there one at 1.30, about half past 1 ? A. May I be 
permitted to say that I think that these two days are all mixed up 
now. 

Q. 'No, we are on this same day. 

Mr. Wilson. — He says these two days are all mixed up,— - 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I know the day I am talking 
about. 1 want to ask about that day. 

Q. That is the same day that you called up Senator Stilwell and 
read the telegram to him. We will stick to this day and get 
through with it. There was a second conversation with him over 
the 'phone. When was that as nearly as you can tell. If you 
don't recall the time go on and give us the conversation. 

Mr. Wilson. — That is objected to upon the ground the witness 
says he has given all of it that he can recall. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He has not touched this con- 
versation. 

The Chairman. — ^o, j^roceed. 

Mr, Wilson. — This is the second conversation on the 27th, or 
have you gone back to the 26th? 

The Chairman.— The 26th. 

Mr. Wilson. — We are on the same day, are we ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — We are on the same day ; we 
have not changed dates at all. 

Mr. Wilson. — You have changed your position evidently. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — No, we have not. 

By the Chairman: 

Go ahead. If vou had a conversation state what it was. 



61 

A. I am hopelessly under the impression that the dates are be- 
ing mixed so I am testifying to one day which I really think is 
closed and 1 am on another day. I agree with the position of 



By Attorney-General Carmody : 

Q. iSTever mind discussing that. You have narrated one con- 
versation over the 'phone with Senator Stilwell, and he was to 
call you up later in the day so you say. Did he call you up later 
in the day i A. The day of the first conversation ; yes, he did. 

Q. This is the conversation I want now. Will you go on and 
tell it ? A. The second conversation he merely tells me that he 
has seen all of his committee or canvassed his committee and 
that it is all right, that my bill will be reported out, or had been 
reported out during the afternoon, and I came back at him just 
as I have testified before saying that vou shall report that out of 
the Committee on Codes of the Assembly side of the House or 
still these telegrams go. Now, I have so testified before here 
I think to the best of my recollection. 

Q. Was that all that occurred at that time? A. 'No. He said, 
'•''' It is hopeless, I cannot." I said that '' There is such a comity 
of interest between you people and the Legislature that I thor- 
oughly believe that you can and you will do it or out these tele- 
grams go. Take your choice." 

Q. Is that all that occurred at that time ? A. Substantially all 
that I can remember. Eemember, there is a big strain put on 
a man's memory. 

Q. Was there anything in that conversation about his calling 
you im later in the day, a third time ? A. Yes ; I called him up 
at 5 o'clock and he did not answer, and at 6 o'clock and he did 
not answer. 

Q. No, wait a minute. On the first day did he call you up 
later that day? You have given us two conversations that oc- 
curred over the 'phone; was there a third conversation? A. Not 
that I recollect, sir, now. 

Q. Was there a conversation about 4:30 p. m. on March 26th 
while Mr. Field and you were at the 'phone as described already 
in your conversation, and did he say this to you ; I will ask you 
again if you recall any part of that conversation or that there was 
one? A. That is on the 26th 

Q. This is on the 26th. A. That is the next day? 



62 

Q. That is the same day ; we have not got away from that day, 
the day you said you were going to send out your telegrams. A. 
The day that 1 said I was going to send out the telegrams ? 

Q. Yes. A. Oh, yes, he said he would call me up the next 
morning. 

Q. Wait a minute; did he call you up at 4:30 and did he say 
'' I have talked over that matter wdth that party and he said he 
will take it up and thinks it will be all right?" A. Yes, sir. 

Q. This is the third conversation on the 26th of March, is 
that right ? A. i^ow, you are alluding to the first day that I 
threatened him ? 

Q. Yes. A. Yes. 

Q. And then did you reply, '' Then it will be reported out by 
the Assembly Committee J" A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And did he reply: ''Yes, it will come out in the Senate 
Committee to-night and probably the Assembly also f A. ''And 
I will call you up to-morrow morning." 

Q. AVait a minute, did he say that I A. Yes. 

Q. And did you say '' Well, when vvill you be in Xew York?" 
A. Yes, I did say so. 

Q. And v\diat was his reply, do you remember now; did he say 
JFriday ? A. Friday, I was just going to say Friday. 

Mr. Byrne. — 0!)jected to on the ground it is leading. 

The Chairman. — ^Tho Committee agrees with counsel that it is 
quite leading. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I tried to get something that he 
said he had forgotten about. I think I have a right to refresh 
his recollection. 

Mr. Wilson. — ■ Xo, scarcely. You first get him to give a ver- 
sion of ibese conversations; then you leave the 26th and go to the 
27th ; then you go back to the 2Gth again and by leading questions 
and putting into his mouth what you read from what you have 
there vou £*et bini to corroborate the public statements that he has 
beretofore made. 

The Chairman, — The Committee v/ill go over there ; they will 
get it on the record. 

Attorney-Gf ne.ral Carmody. — The fact is I have not left the 
26th at all. [ have leen talkins; about the 26th all the time. 



63 

Counsel is entirely mistaken if lie tliinks we have got on another 
day. 

Q. In this last conversation with Senator Stilwell was there 
anything said abont his calling yon np on the i^Tth, the following 
-day? 

Mr. Byrne. — That is objected to — 

The Chairman. — Overrnled. 

Q. Was there anything said on that subject i A. Yes. 

Q. What was it? A. That he would call nie np. 

Q. Did you have a communication with him the following 
day? I am requested by a Senator to ask this question: x\t 
what hour was this second conversation on j^,larch 2Gth? That 
is the third conversation I think; there Avere three on that day; 
the last conversation ? 

The Chairman. — 'No, the second conversation. 

J3y the Cliairman : 

Q. At what hour in the day as near as you can recollect did the 
second conversation take place on March 26th '( A. Let us say 
1 o'clock. 

Q. One o'clock in the afternoon ? A. Yes. 

By Attorney-General Carmody. — Is that your best recollection ? 
A. That is my best recollection. 



Q. Did you have a talk with Senator Stilwell on the morning 
of March 2Tth over the 'phone; this is the followdng day? A. My 
recollection is that he called me up and told me that the bill had 
passed the Assembly. 

Q. Did he call you up 1 A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Tell us what was said ? A. That is all I can recollect. 

Q. Eepeat it again. A. He called me up and told me the bill 
had passed the Assembly. 

Q. State all that you recall of that conversation on the 27th? 
A. That is all that I can recall now. 

Q. Then I will ask you, see if I can refresh your recollection ; 
may I do so. I have asked him for all that occurred at that time. 
Was there a memorandum made of this conversation by anybody 
at that time ? A. Yes, sir. There were about five or six of these 
<?onversations that we had people listening at the telephones, and 
liave a perfect memorandum of w^hat was said. 



64 

Q. And was there a memorandum made of this conyersation 
that you saw afterwards ? A. Yes, made a memorandum when 
the conversation was over. 

Q. Did Senator Stilwell say this to you ? A. '' The Senate 
Committee reported it out hist night and I will hand it in today. 
Tlie Assembly had a late hearing last night and didn't go into 
Executive Session. The Chairman tells me it will he taken up 
today.-' Do you recall that ^ 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to it. 

The Chairnum. — Objection overruled. A. I recall the con- 
versation. The great struggle in my mind now is to overcome the 
apparent discrepancy in the dates. 

Q. Never mind the date now. We are talking about a con- 
versation ? A. We had such a conversation as that. 

Q. Do you nov7 remember your reply " The Senate Committee 
reported it out last night and I v\dll hand it in today. The As- 
sembly had a late hearing last night and didn't go into Executive 
Session. The Chairman tells me it will be taken up today " — 
do you remember what you replied to that ? 

Mr. Wilson. — We object to that. 

The Chairman. — I think there is a good deal in the objection 
of the counselor. I think. Attorney-General, you might ask the 
witness does iic know, does he recollect, and let him state that. 
I do not think it is quite fair. The Committee feels that you 
can refer to the particular matter, but you do not want to read 
the vrords contained in the statement. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — You know I asked him to tell 
ail that occurred on that occasion, then I asked permission to 
refresh his recollection by asking him if certain things had oc- 
curred. That I thiidv is the rule of evidence. 

^Senator Brown. — Ask if anything was said on a certain sub- 
ject. 

Q. Was anything said in that conversation about the bill hav- 
ing been reported out by the Senate Committee — anything on 
that subject ? A. I cannot answer you, sir. The fact is that 
my belief is that you have mixed the two days on the thing, 
instead of myself, so when I attempt to answer you all the time 
I am mentallv disaoreeine; with vou on the day when it occurs. 



65 

Q. You don't know whether anything of that kind was said? 
A. 'No, sii'; hecause if yon are right, I am wrong. 

Q. In that conversation w^as there anything said about having 
a letter or another conversation over the 'phoned A. Than the 
26th? Is this the 26th? 

Q. This is' the 27th? A. Oh, 27th. 

Q. Yes. A. I don't recollect it, sir. I wouldn't trust myself. 

Q. You do not recollect that you said to him that you would 
call him up about 5 o'clock to see if the Assembly has acted upon 
it ? A. I certainly had this conversation wdth Mr. Stilwell upon 
a certain date, '' I will call you up about 5 o'clock to see 
if the Assembly has reported that out " — no. '' I will call you 
up at 4 o'clock to see if the Assembly has reported that out." 
He said "■ Xo, make it later," and he said '' Make it 5 o'clock." 
'^ Very well," I said, '^ 1 will call you up at 5 o'clock and I will 
call you up at 6 o'clock " on a certain day which is now confused 
in my memory. I did call him up at 5 o'clock and did not get 
him. I called him up at 6 o'clock and did not get him. 

The Chairman. — We will adjourn until 2.15. 

Whereupon an adjournment was taken until 2.15 o'clock p. :Nr., 
same date. 



AFTER RECESS. 

C^ommittee met pursuant to adjournment. 

The Chairman. — I wish to caution the spectators again that 
the Committee desires no smoking during the proceedings. The 
Committee is ready to go ahead. Is the witness here ? 

George H. Kendall recalled. 

Direct examination continued by Attorney-General Carmody: 
Q. I Avas asking you w^hen we adjourned about calling Senator 

Stilwell up on the phone. You stated that you called him up 

at six o'clock and did not get him. Did you call him up after 

that on that day, or the following? A. I did not hear the first 

part of the question, sir. 

Q. Did you call Senator Stilv/ell up after six o'clock on the 

27th, or on the following day, or at any later date on the phone? 

A. On what ? 



66 

Q. On the plioiie i A. I called up Senator Stilwell eacli morn- 
ing on the phone, with the exception of Friday. Friday he 
called me up. 

Mr. Wilson. — Each of which mornings, Mr. Kendall ^ 

Q. Do jou remember what day of the week that was, Friday? 
A. l^ou see, sir, I am reckoning in days of the week all the 
time as against your days of the month. 

Q. Well, we have had the 27th before we adjourned. You 
were talking about conversations on the 27th? A. If the 27th 
was Thursday, Senator Stilwell called me up the next morning, 
Friday morning, and told me that the bill had been reported out 
of the House Committee on Codes. 

Q. ]s that all that was said at that time ^ A. Practically, yes. 
sir. 

Q. Did you have any other conversation with him over the 
'phone ? A. After Friday ? 

Q. Yes. A. Xo, sir. 

Q. That was the last, was it? A. That is the last telephone 
conversation that he called me up. 

Q. Did you receive a letter from Senator Stilwell about that 
time ? A. Saturday I received a letter from Senator Stilwell. 

Q. I show you this letter (handing to witness) dated March 
27th. When did you receive that letter ? A. I received that 
letter on Saturday of that week. 

Q. What day of the month? A. I think that would be the 
29th, sir, I think so, but all my memory runs to the days of the 
week. 

Q. That (indicating) is Senator Stilwell's signature, is it? 
A. That I don't know, sir, but it is the same as the others that 
I have received from him. 

Q. Can you say whether this (handing to witness) is the en- 
velope that the letter was enclosed in? A. It is, sir. I preserved 
it because I remarked the difference between the date and its 
receipt. 

Q. Xever miiicl. That is the — . A. Envelope, yes sir. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I desire to offer the letter in 
evidence. 

The Chairman.- — Letter received. 

Mr. Wilson. — And may the envelope also be received? 

The C'hairman. — Yes. 







Said letter and envelope were received and marked State's 
Exhibits 8 and A respectively. 

Mr. Wilson. — Will you also let it appear that it bears a post- 
mark the same as the date of the letter t 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is a fact, yes. 

The Chairman. — That appears on the envelope. That is the 
date of the letter and the postmark of the envelope of March 27. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — March 27th. The postmark i& 
March 27tli, 11 r. m. (Eeading) ''Mr. George H. Kendall, 75 
Sixth avenue, New York City. Dear Sir. — The Senate Codes Com- 
mittee reported Senate Bill ^o. 1188, introduced by me, amended 
as you suggested, for civil action, and as Chairman I handed the 
report to the Senate this morning. The bill is now before the 
Senate for actiori. In the telegram I sent you, I said the number 
of members of the Assembly Codes Committee was fifteen. This 
was a mistake in count. I find that the correct number is thirteen, 
consisting of the following named persons, namely: Patrick J. 
McGrath, New York; Fred C. Schwarz, Rensselaer; A. Green- 
burg, New York ; Karl S. Deitz, Kings ; Edward A. Dox, Scho- 
harie ; Charles J. Carroll, ^ew York; William P. Hamilton, 
Kings; Joseph D. Kelly, ^^ew York; S. A. Cotillo, ISTew York; 
John G. Pembleton, Tioga ; P. L. Richardson, Allegany ; John 
Knight, YvVoming; S. Sufrin, ^ew York; to whom you can send 
any brief or printed matter addressed to them, to the Assembly 
Chamber. I spoke to the Chairman of the Assembly Codes Com- 
mittee, and he agrees wdth me that not only your company, but 
others as well are being unjustly discriminated against and he 
favors reporting the bill to the Assembly. I shall use every proper 
means to have the bill become a law. Respectfullv vours, S. J. 
Stihvell." 

Q. Did you reply to that ? A. I did. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Have you his reply. Senator? 

Senator StihvelL — I have not received any, sir. 

Q. Did you mail a letter addressed to Senator Stilwell at 
Albany? A. I did. 

Q. Do you remember the date? A. I think it is the 29th, sir. 

Q. The same date you received this letter^ A. Yes, sir, I 
think it is the 29th. 



68 

Q. Did you deposit tliat letter yourself in tlie post-office or the 
post-office box^ or did some one else do it ? A. I think I deposited 
it in a street box, not in the post-office. 

Q. You deposited it addressed to him ? 

Mr. Byrne. — I object and ask that it be stricken out. He says 
he thinks he deposited it in a street box. 

The Chairman. — Eead the question and answer. 

(Question and answer read.) 

The Chairman. — Sustained. 

Q. Do you know whether or not you deposited it yourself 
somewhere ? 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that on the ground it is leading. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

A. Was that Saturday ? 

Q. Your letter to Senator Stilwell? A. Was the 29th Sat- 
urday? 

Q. Yes. A. I deposited that letter myself. 

Q. Where ? A. In the street box diagonally across the corner 
from our place. 

Q. Was it post prepaid? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And in an envelope? Yes, sir. 

Q. How addressed ? A. Senator Stephen J. Stilwell, Capitol, 
Albany, 'New York. 

Q. Has that letter been returned to you ? A. No; sir. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Will you produce that letter? 

Senator iStilwell. — ■ I have not got the letter. I haven't had 
the letter. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — You say you haven't it ? 

'Senator Stilwell. — ISTo. 

Mr. Wilson. — He says he hasn't any such letter. No such 
letter was ever received and he doesn't think any such letter was 
ever written. 

Q. Have you a copy of that letter ? A. Yes, sir. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I ask to be permitted to intro- 
duce a copy. 



(39 

Mr. Wilson. — That is objected to on the around that they 
have laid no proper fcnndation for it. 

Attorney-General Carmody.— Proof of the mailing of a letter 
in the post-office is sufficient to justify introdnciion of a copy. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

Mr. Wilson. — Exception. If your Honor vill permit me to 
proceed a moment. Upon a matter as important as this is, we at 
least ought to know what the letter contains and what he 
claims it contains, but there seems to be a somewhat continuous 
effort here to permit this gentleman to corroborate himself by 
declarations of what he claims he said, not in the presence of the 
Senator. 

i*^ow, he says he said certain things to his associates in the 
office ; that he got his office — that he sneaked 'phones to working, 
and a whole lot of those things. AVe are in no shape to say those 
are not so. Tliose are not declarations of what ]\Ir. Stilwell said. 
They are not declarations that are traced to him in any way. 
'Now. he says that he thinks he did not get a letter, that post mark 
shows was naailed to him on the 27th, and directlv in accordance 
to what he says Mr. Stilwell did state to him in answer to 
his telephone that he had written him fully. Xow he says that 
he did not get that nntil Saturday. 

To corroborate himself and to bring home the further facts of 
something he says he had said to him to vindicate and corroborate 
himself, he says '^ I wrote him a letter." When he is asked what 
did you do with it he hesitates and says I don't know. Was it 
Saturday '( 

The Attorney-General says yes it was Saturday. You are all 
right on that. 

N"ow he says yes, either I did or somebody else mailed it. 

Did you mail it ( 

Yes, if it was Saturday. 

That is, if the Attorney-General and he together were right, 
and it was Saturday and he did not get the other letter, then he 
mailed it on the same day he thinks by putting it in a letter box. 

T don't want to be previous about it, but I do snggest this mat- 
ter is one of so much importance. We are here strnggiing in the 
dark defending ourselves from blows the direction, of which we do 
not know and at least it ought not to be received at this time. It 
seems to me it is a matter that possibly the Chairman, not know- 



70 

ing tlie facts^ did not fully consider, and I would ask that you at 
least would hold your ruling for a moment, and let me kindly 
in the meantime examine the letter. 

The Chairman. — You can bring that out on cross-examination. 
The Committee thinks the foundation is sufficient to admit the 
letter. 

Mr. Wilson. — • May we see the letter before it is admitted ? 

The Chairman. — Oh yes, counsel will show you the letter. 

Mr. Wilson (after examining same). — I object to it, first, that 
there is no foundation laid for the introduction of the evidence; 
that there is no proof of its proper mailing ; that it is a declaration 
on behalf of the complainant in this case, the witness, and no 
evidence that it was ever received or brought to the attention of 
the person to whom it was addressed; and I apprehend that a 
naked declaration, even though I concede that if the letter is 
proper evidence, if it is proper evidence the presumption is, 
if it was properly mailed, that in the regnilar course of the mail 
it reached the parties, that is as far as the presumption goes; 
but that don't make every declaration a person sees fit to 
make concerning another, simply because he mails it to him, 
competent evidence. This letter required no reply. I do not 
know whether the Chairman has seen it or not. A moment's 
investigation of the letter itself will show it is purely a declara- 
tion in favor of this gentleman — 

The Chairman. — Let me see the letter (Chairman receives 
letter) . 

Mr. Wilson. — not a declaration he was bound by and I spe- 
cifically object to it on the ground that the contents of the letter, 
even though they v/ere received by the Senator, is not competent 
evidence. 

Ey Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. You keep a letterpress book for copying letters ? A. I do. 
Q. (Showing book.) Is this it? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who made this copy of March 2i9th, 1913 ? 

Mr, Wilson. — I object to it as immaterial and incompetent. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He made a copy in his own 
letterbook. 



71 

The Chairman. — Objection overruled. 

A. Our stenographer. 

Q. Who made it? A. Our stenographer. 

Q. Who is jour stenographer, what stenographer '. A. Miss 
Allen; she is present here. 

Q. Is that a copy of the letter you deposited in the mail box 
to Senator Stilwell ? A. It is, with my signature added. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I offer that in evidence. 

Mr. Wilson. — That is objected to for the same reasons. 

Ey the Chairman : 

Q. Is the stenographer present that made that copy i A. Yes, 
sir. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He can testify it is a copy, be- 
cause he mailed the letter. He can identify the copy. But I want 
to prove now, if I may, that this is a copy of the letter. 

Mr. Wilson. — I object then that that is not the best evidence; 
that either the original or the person who made the copy from 
the original is the only one that can testify about it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — This man dictated the original 
letter. He knows the original letter. The question is whether or 
not the copy of the original letter is competent ; having made 
proof of the mailing of the original letter, the presumption is 
that it vras received. There is no difference in secondary evidence 
betv»^een this and any other copy. The question is about proving 
the copy, and he knows it is a copy. 

Mr. Wilson. — Then he wants to give evidence parole or writ- 
ten as to the contents of the original letter. He has got to re- 
member what was in the original. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — To be sure he has. If the Com- 
mittee thinks I had better produce the stenographer who made the 
copy I will do it, but it seems to me that does not add anything 
to the authenticity of the copy. 

Senator Blauvelt. — He dictated the letter and sent it ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. 

The Chairman. — Show him the letter press copy. 



i'^ 



Attorncv-General Cariiiodv. — Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. — I think yon liad better call her. 

Attorney-General (tinned v. — AA^ill von come forward, Miss 
Allen? 

(It was fonnd that ]\[iss Allen was not in the mom. she having- 
stepped ont temporarily.) 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Let me take the hook, an<] we will 
wait nntil Miss Allen comes. 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Did any other commnnications pass between yonrself and 
Senator Stilwell after the 20th of March, in writing or over the 
telephone? A. I wrote the other day asking him to send back a 
paper which I left with him Avhen T spoke before his Committee 
on Codes. 

Q. Then that was the last commnnication ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did yon on or abont ]\rarch 81st, send a telegram to Governor 
Snlzer ? 

]\[r. AVilson. — That I object to as incompetent and improper. 

Attornev-General Carmodv. — Jt is the telegram in qnestion. 

The Chairman. — Overrnled. That is the basis of the charges 
yon are operating nnder. 

A. Shall T answer? 

The Chairman. — Yes. 

The Witness. — Yes sir, I did. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Has the Committee that tele- 
gram ? 

The Chairman. — AVe had the original. 

Mr. Kennedy. — Here is the original. 

The Witness. — I do not care to have the gentleman look 
throngh my book there. 

Afr. Wilson. — I am looking at two pages. 

(}. (showing telegTam). Is that a copy of the telegram you 
sent the Governor? A. Yes, sir, a copy. 



Attorney-General Carmody. — We have not the original lure. 
I wonld like to offer this as the telegram that he sent. 

Mr. Wilson. — 1 assnme it is the same as is contained in the 
record. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The one that is in the record is 
the one I offer. I offer in evidence the telegram that is dated 
in the record dated March 31st, 1913. 

The Cliairman. — Received in evidence and marked Exhibit 9. 

Mr. Wilson. — There is a little confusion, but as I understand 
it, it is conceded that the telegram sent to Governor Sulzer is 
correctly set forth in the proceedings before this Committee. 

The Chairman. — Only one change I see. There is absent the 
address of Governor Sulzer at the top of it, but the bottom of the 
telegram is an exact copy. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — While we are v/aiting for Miss 
Allen, I would like to call ]\fr. Lewis, if he is here. Samuel 
Lewis, Jr. 

Mr. Lev/is. — Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. — Mr. Lewis, do you solemnly swear the tes- 
timony vvdiich you shall give in the matter of the investigation 
and charges against Senator Stilwell, shall be the truth, the whole 
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God ''( 

Mr. Lewis. — I do. 

Samuel Lewis, Jr., then took the stand. 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Mr. Lewis, you are Samuel Lewis, Jr. ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I show you letter of March 3rd, 1913, and ask you — that 
is addressed to George H. Kendall — if that is your signature ? 
A. It is. 

Mr. Wilson. — I olnect to this order of proeedure, and insist 
that he complete his examination of Mr. Kendall, and that we 
be perniitted to cross-examine him before he takes up another 
witness. 

The Chairman. — I think this will not take much time in 
cleaning up this evidence as to some letters. 



Attorney-General Carmodv. — This evidence we want in addi- 
tion to Mr. Kendall's statement. 

Mr. Wilson. — If there is nothing further than concerning 
something which Mr. Kendall is to testify to ? 

The Chairman. — This is merely a formal matter, and really 
part of Mr. Kendall's examination. 

Q. I show you check dated February 27th, calling your atten- 
tion to the signature on the back; is that your signature? A. It 
is, both of these endorsements. 

Q. Samuel Lewis and Samuel Lewis, Jr. ? A. Yes, sir. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. ^ow, Mr. Kendall^ 
take the stand. 

George H. Kendall resumes the stand. 

Attorney-General Camiody. — I now offer in evidence the 
check. 

Mr. Wilson. — I object to it until I have an opportunity to 
examine it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I thought you did examine it 
this morning, and I offer in evidence — 

Mr. Wilson. — Will you wait a moment. It seems to me we are 
on rather dangerous ground here. I object to the check as in- 
competent evidence, and as a transaction between Mr. Kendall and 
Mr. Lewis. I do not see hov/ these transactions between other 
parties, not in the presence of Mr. Stillwell, are to bind him 
because he gave Lewis a check or sent Lewis a check. I do not 
see how that is binding upon Mr. Stihvell. It cannot be offered 
only for this purpose. Lie first tells a story. 'Now, it may be 
true. We shall try and prove that it is false. ]^ow, to corrobor- 
ate that story, and to give credence to what he says he said and 
did, he produces a check. Now, I submit it is not competent evi- 
dence against the Senator, nor neither is it competent evidence to 
corroborate him. He cannot corroborate himself by pretending' 
to mail letters or give somebody else a check, and then say that 
that was done because the Senator told him to. If they want 
to prove that check there is a Avay to do it. If they had this 
transaction with Mr. Lewis, w^e are perfectly willing they should 
examine him about that, but we decline to be bound if we can. 



75 

avoid it, and we say it is unfair in a matter here where our de- 
fense is that there is a queer combination of truth and falsehood 
mixed up here together, and unless we go slow and I be given sm 
opportunity to aid you gentlemen in ascertaining the truth or 
falsity of these charges, why, it seems to me an injustice is being 
done. If it was on any immaterial matter I would not take your 
time up for a moment, but it goes to the very essence of whether 
this Senator was bribed or not; it goes to the very essence of 
whether this gentleman was attempting to bribe and did bribe a 
senator here or not, and they are matters it seems to me as to 
which the strictest proof should be exacted, and all the rules that 
pertain to the administration of criminal cases in a court of 
record should be observed by you gentlemen here. 

Attorney-General Carmod}^ — The Committee will remember 
that vvdtness stated that in a conversation with Senator Stilwell, 
it was agreed that Mr. Kendall was to send Mr. Lewis the check 
for $250, so the testimony makes this check competent against 
'Senator Stihvell. The question of the weight is to be considered, 
but no question about its competency. 

Mr. AVilson. — Yes, but when he says Senator Stihvell told him 
to send the check, that is his unsupported declaration. aSTow he 
cannot corroborate his unsupported- declaration by saying here is 
a check that I did send ; therefore, I must have had the conversa- 
tion with Senator Stihvell. 

The Chairman. — The Committee will overrule the objection, 
counselor. 

Mr. Wilson.— Will you give us an exception ? I do not know 
as exceptions are of any importance here. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The check is offered in evidence. 

Said check was admitted and marked State's Exhibit ISTo. 10. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — '^ ^o. 5865. Xew York, Feb- 
ruary 27, 1913. The Trust Company of America, pay to the 
order of Samuel Lewis, $250. E"ew York Bank E'ote Company, 
E. G. Allen, Treasurer." 250 in figures on the lower left hand 
corner. Check bears the endorsement ^^ Samuel Lewis, Samuel 
Lewis, Jr." and also the endorsement " Pay to the order of E"a- 
tional Commercial Bank of Albany, 'New York, Stanwix Hall 
Hotel Company, E. L. Marion." T offer the endorsements as well 



76 

as the check. I now offer in evidence the letters that I called the 
attention of 2h\ Lewis to the signatures, which he admits, one 
dated March 5th, 1913. That is the first one — no, March 3d, 
1913. 

J\rr. Wilson. — Yon offer these ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. 

Mr. Vv^ilson. — We object to them, that they are declarations of 
a third party, not in the presence of — 

Attorney-General Carmody.^ The question of their weight, 
of course, is for the consideration of the Senate Committee, as a 
part of this transaction, being the letter in which the check was 
enclosed, the receipt of which is admitted. 

The Chairman. — You are to offer these letters ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I offer the letter of March 3d. 

Mr. Wilson. — I take it those letters can be competent only in 
one of two view^s — either because there has been sufficient proof to 
shov\^ that Mr. Lewis was the agent of Mr. Stilwell, and therefore, 
that Senator Stilwell is bound by the declarations of his agent, or 
that we are proceeding upon some theory here that Stilwell and 
Lewis did enter into a conspiracy to corrupt legislation and that 
this is one of the steps in proving that conspiracy. Now I sub- 
mit that there is nothing here that would authorize their- intro- 
duction, by reason of any agency existing between them. Cer- 
tainly nothing in the line of conspiracy, and if we are following 
the rules of a court of evidence I cannot understand how a letter 
written by Lewis to Kendall, where Kendall swears he never had 
any conversation with him excepting in the restaurant, can be 
competent in this investigation. 

The Chairman. — The Committee holds that the two letters of 
March 3rd and March 5th are admissible as relating to the pay- 
ment of the $250 check. The other letter the Committee holds 
is not admissible. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The letter of March 3rd, 1913. 
I offer in evidence. 

Said letter was adm.itted and marked State's Exhibit I^o. 11. 

Attorney General Carmody. — (reading) '^ State of ISTew 
York, Senate Chamber, Albany, March 3rd. 1913. Mr. George 



T7 

H. Kendall, Dear Sir: Enclosed please find printed copies of 
Senate Bill 1188. Of course it has not been introduced in the 
Assembly. If you wish this done, please advise me and I will 
attend to the same. I may mention that I have not yet received 
your check for $250, as agreed. If you wish anything further in 
regards to this bill, please let me know. Yours truly, Samuel 
Lewis, Jr." 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I offer in evidence the letter of 
March 5th, 1913. 

Said letter was admitted and marked State's Exhibit ISTo. 12. 

Attorney-General Carmody (reading). — " State of 'New York, 
Senate Chamber. Albany, March 5th, 1913. Mr. George H. 
Kendall, New York Bank I^ote Company. Dear Sir: Received 
your check for $250 yesterday and thank you for same. Our 
letters must have crossed each other in the mail. Yours truly, 
Samuel Lewis, Jr." 

Mr. "Wilson. — ^ow, inasmuch as the other two letters have 
been admitted, we will withdraw our objection to the third one 
and consent that that also go in. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I do not care. If the Com- 
mittee thinks that other letter incompetent, improper and imma- 
terial — 

The Chairman. — If there is no objection to it. 

Mr. Wilson. — I do not ask you to put it in unless you want to. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I will put it in, if the Commit- 
tee permits. 

Said letter was admitted and marked State's Exhibit No. 13. 

Attorney-General Carmody (reading). — " State of ISTew York. 
Senate Chamber. March 10, 1913. Mr. George A. Field. Dear 
Sir: Our worst fears have been realized. Cuvillier did intro- 
duce bill which is enclosed herewith. He simply saw the account 
in the papers and introduced the bill. Did you see the Morning 
Times ? I think you can get over the Cuvillier handicap, though 
it may be hard. If you come up Wednesday, don't fail to see me. 
Yours truly, Samuel Lewis, Jr." 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I would like to have the witness 
step aside a while. I want to produce another witness. 



18 

John Korzetsky, a witness produced on behalf of the Attorney- 
General, being duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Direct-Examination : 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. What is your name ? A. John Korzetsky. 

Q. What is your occupation ? A. Messenger boy. 

Q. For whom ? A. Postal Telegraph Company. 

Q. Were you a messenger boy in the service of the telegraph 
company on March 25th ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you recollect having a telegram to deliver of which this 
is a copy on that tissue paper (handing tissue paper to witness) ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know where you got that telegram? A. Postal 
Telegraph Company. 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that on the ground that this is im- 
proper and incompetent. 

The Chairman. — What are the grounds ? I didn't get that. 

Mr. Byrne. — Incompetent and improper. 

The Chairman. — You mean what is incompetent and improper ? 

Mr. Byrne. — The introduction or attempted introduction of 
the delivery of a telegram by this boy. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

Mr. Byrne. — Exception. 

Q. What did you do with it ? 

Mr. Wilson. — We may be wrong about it, but I assumed that 
what they did was to deliver to this boy an envelope containing 
something. I do not know. And yet he is making it appear by 
exhibiting a telegram here to have it appear that this boy knows 
that the particular telegram he delivered. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is what he swears to. That 
he delivered a telegram of which this is a copy. 

Mr. Wilson. — Of course, he swears to it, if you ask him to. 
He is innocent about it, if you want to get that kind of evidence. 
If you asked him about it — what he recalls about it, without 
first stating it to him, we might have a different state of facts. 



79 

Senator Brown. — Does tlie boy swear that is the particular 
telegram of which he delivered the original? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I asked him if that is so, and 
he said this was the one. 

Q. Tell us how you know ? A. I got it about five after three 
in the afternoon. 

Q. What did you know of the contents of the telegram ? A. I 
did not know what it read or anything, because we don't look at it. 

Mr. Wilson. — We did not hear what the boy is saying. 

The Chairman. — 'Speak louder. 

Q. Repeat that answer? A. We don't know what the tele- 
gram reads because we don't see it. I know it was a telegram, 
being I got it five minutes after three in the afternoon. 

Q. Do you know whether there was any number on the tele- 
gram? A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. — That I object to. May I examine this boy to 
ascertain the truth ? 

The Chairman. — W^hy not examine him after counsel gets 
through ? 

Mr. Wilson. — The damage will be done before that time 
arrives. 

The Chairman. — This is not a matter before a jury. We will 
discard the evidence if you can show the boy does not know what 
he is talking about. 

Mr. Wilson. — The boy was asked frankly and stated he did not 
know what was in the telegram. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I will prove that he does. 

Mr. Wilson. — I know you will. 

The Chairman. — If it is not proper we can strike it out on 
cross-examination. 

Q. Was there any number on the telegram you delivered ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember what it was ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Well, now — 

The Witness. — ISTo, sir. 



80 

Q. Tell us now if you know the system of identifying tele- 
grams and the copies of telegrams that are given to you for de- 
livery by the company ? A. Why, the telegrams we get to de- 
liver are on a white sheet of paper and it says Postal Telegraph 
Company onto it, 46 State street, Albany, and it is in an 
envelope. 

Q. What about the number ? A. The number is over in the 
left hand corner of the telegram. 

Q. On the envelope ? A. The envelope. 

Q. Is there any other record of that telegram ? A. Yes, sir, a 
copy at the office. 

Q. A copy, and what does that copy contain ? A. White tissue 
paper. 

Q. And what else ; what is on it ? A. Just what it reads on the 
telegram. 

Q. A copy of the telegram ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What else ? A. That is all that is on that, and the number 
of the telegram. 

Q. Is there a copy of the number of the telegram on the tissue 
paper ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. So, then, you have a complete copy. You have a copy of the 
number on the envelope ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have a copy of the telegram and the number of the 
envelope on the tissue paper ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I show you this piece of tissue paper, calling your attention 
to that number. Can you state after examining that, whether a 
telegram the envelope of which bore a number similar to that, was 
delivered by you anywhere ? 

M. Wilson. — I ask to be allowed to inquire as to whether, 
independent of the paper and of his own personal recollection, 
what he knows concerning this transaction, and I submit that he 
cannot use a memorandum furnished to him by counsel until he 
has first exhausted his independent present recollection. 

The Chairman. — We will take the testimony, counselor. 

Q. What is your answer ? A. Before we get a telegram the 
clerk writes the number of the telegram on the tissue sheet. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Repeat that question, please. 

(Question read.) 



81 

Q. You are allowed to answer that question. You can answer 
by yes or no ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It was delivered ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where ? A. At the Capitol, at our office. 

Q. Can you tell to whom it was addressed on the envelope ? 
A. Senator Stilwell; Honorable. 

Q. Is that the way it was addressed ? A. Hon. Senator Stil- 
well. Senate Chamber. 

Q. What did you do with it ? A. I came up to the Capitol 
with it. I tried to open the Senate Chamber and could not 
get in there, so I came over to our office and gave it to the man- 
ager over there and he signed for it. 

Q. You call attention now to the place where the signature 
for that telegram appears? A. Yes; right there (indicating). 

Q. Whose name is that ? A. Harry Gorham. 

Q. Who is he ? A. He is manager of the Capitol office. 

Q. Can you tell us the date when that was delivered ? A. March 
21st. 

Mr. Wilson. — I object to it provided he is relying on the 
date of the telegram. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The date when it was delivered, 
that appears on the receipt. 

Mr. Wilson. — I assume he is simply reading from the date 
upon it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I ask him if he can tell the date, 
the hour when delivered. 

Mr. Wilson. — You ask him that by showing him the date. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes, it appears there. 

Q. Was the date put down at the time when you delivered the 
telegTam? A. The date is put down as soon as we get a new 
sheet. 

Q. Was that put down when you delivered the telegram? A. 
It was put down; already on there. 

Q. Already on there? A. Yes. 

Q. Can you tell us the date when that was delivered ? A. March 
25th. 

Q. What hour ? A. At 3 :05 I left it at the office. 

Q. At 3 :05 ? A. Yes. 



82 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I offer that copy in evidence. 

Mr. Wilson. — ^We object to it and ask to be allowed to examine 
it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Just a moment. I want to ask 
just one more question. 

Q. Can you tell the number that was on the envelope ? A. 146. 

The Chairman. — What number was that ? 

The Witness.— 146. 

The Chairman. — Let me see that. 

(The Chairman examines the tissue paper). 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The only effect it has is that it 
was delivered and that man receipted for it. 

Senator Blauvelt. — That a telegram bearing that number v/as 
delivered here. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — As to the effect of it that is an- 
other question. There is no evidence it was delivered to Senator 
Stilwell, but Ave want that much in and will connect it later. 

I offer that for the purpose of showing that a telegram of which 
that was a copy was delivered to Mr. Gorham that day. I will 
have to follow that up. 

The Chairman.— You are not going to offer the contents or any- 
thing like that at this time. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — 'No. Perhaps it would be better 
to mark it for identification. 

The Chairman. — Mark it for identification and it can be proved 
later. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Mark this for identification. 

The Chairman. — Mark it Exhibit 1 for identification only. 

Paper received and marked State's Exhibit 1 for identification 
of this date. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. 

The Chairman. — You may cross-examine. 



83 

Cross-examination by Mr. Wilson: 

Q. The Attorney-General showed you this tissue paper with 
this writing on it. Do you know who prepared that ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Who did it? A. A girl by the name of Kirchler. 

Q. What is that answer? A. A girl called a copy girl. 

Q. She copied it on a typewriter ? A. JSTo, sir ; run it through 
something like a machine. 

Q. Ran it through a machine? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know whether it was put in the envelope or not? 
A. Not the tissue paper. 

Q. What is that? A. 'Not the tissue paper wasn't put in an 
envelope. 

Q. I show you a piece of tissue paper. This is a piece of 
tissue paper ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then in ordinary practice a copy would be made on white 
paper? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Which would presumably be the same as the one on tissue 
paper ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then that copy would be put in an envelope? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. And the envelope should be numbered the same as the tele- 
gram? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever look to see whether the telegram is numbered 
the same as the envelope? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have to look and see whether the telegram and the 
envelope correspond ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you been in the practice of doing that ? 
A. Why sometimes the clerk gives that to us and we see by the 
number so that they go in the right envelopes. 

Q. Who endorses the number on the telegram? A. The copy 
girl. 

Q. Who endorsed the number on the envelope? A. The clerk. 

Q. What is that ? A. The clerk. 

Q. Would you know what telegrams you received that day if 
you didn't — if they did not show you a memoranda ? 

A. That is what we keep our sheets for, to show what we do. 

Q. If you don't have your book, your receipt, or if you didn't 
have the telegram would you be able to remember ? A. Cer- 
tainly. 

Q. You certainly would? A. Yes, sir. 



84 

Q. Well, then, on this day you received a telegram addressed to 
Senator Stilwell ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you receive any telegram the day before that addressed 
to anybody? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do yon know whom ? A. Certainly. 

Q. What is that? A. L. W. Milford Company. 

Q. To L. W. Milford Company ? A. And George E. Altro. 
■ Q. What was the last telegram delivered after this one ? A. 
The last one after this was for another Senator. 

Q. What is that ? A. For a Senator. 

Q. Senator who ? A. I think it was Senator Frawley. 

Q. Did yon take one there at the same time ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many telegrams did yon deliver that day? A. I 
gness it was 39 or so. 

Q. Thirty-nine or so, that yon delivered ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And yon remember all of them? A. 'No, not all of them. 

Q. How many of them ? A. About ten. 

Q. Who has been refreshing your recollection about these 
deliveries on that day ; who have you been talking to ? A. I 
didn't understand you. 

Q. What day of the month was this? A. The 25th. 

Q. The 25th of what? A. March. 

Q. What day of the week was that ? A. I think it was on a 
Monday or Tuesday. 

Q. It was either Monday or Tuesday? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Would you be able to state which? A. I would not just 
now be able to state, no, sir. 

Q. What is that ? A. JSTo, sir. 

Q. When was your attention called to this piece of paper here? 
A. Just a minute ago. 

Q. What is that ? A. Just a minute ago. 

Q. You had never seen it from the time that you delivered the 
telegram until a minute ago ? A. I seen it certainly when the 
copy was made. 

Q. But I say you had not seen this until a minute ago when 
you came on the stand ? A. I^o, sir. 

Q. That is the first you had seen it ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Don't you know who brought it here? A. I know who 
brought it here, certainly. 

Q. Who ? A. The Manager. 

Q. What is that ? A. Our Manager. 

Q. He came with you ?' A. Yes, sir. 



86 

Q. Had lie talked with joii about it ? A. He asked me if I had 
remembered the telegram, that was sent to Mr. Stilwell. 

Q. Tell me all he said? A. He asked me if on the 25th I re- 
membered taking a telegram to Senator Stilwell, and I said jes. 
He asked me where I delivered it, and I told him to Mr. Gorham. 

Q. Who is Mr. Gorham ? A. He is manager of the Capitol 
office. 

Q. Manager of the Capitol office? A. A^es, sir. 

Q. A^'ou had not found Senator Stilwell nor anyone to deliver it 
to, so vou took it back to the telegraph office ? A. I took it over 
here on the third floor. 

Q. How did you happen to know it was the 25th, and not 
know what day of the month it was ?' A. The Manager asked me 
if I had any telegram on the 25th. 

Q. How do you happen to remember it was the 25th of the 
month, and did not know what day of the week it was? What 
day of the week was the 19th? A. I don't know, I can't re- 
member. 

Q. What is that ? A. I can't remember all that. 

Q. What day of the week was April Fools Hay, can you re- 
member that ? A. The first of April. 

Q. What is that ? A. On a Monday. 

Q. You remember that one ? A. Certainly. 

Mr. Wilson. — I think I won't take any more time. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. Is Mr. Gorham 
here ? 

Mr. Gorham. — A^es, sir. 

The Chairman. — Mr. Gorham, do you solemnly swear the tes- 
timony you shall give in the charges against Senator Stilwell, 
shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God? 

Mr. Gorham. — I do. 

Hiram S. Gorham thereupon took the stand. 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. What is your occupation ? A. I have charge of the Postal 
Telegraph Cable Company in the Capitol. 
Q. In the Capitol? A. A^es sir. 



86 

Q. Do you recollect a telegram being left with you on or about 
^March 25th, for delivery to anyone by the last witness ? A. I do. 

Q. State what you remember about it ? A. Why, I remember 
the young man coming up to the window there and asking me to 
take those telegrams; I was very busy, and I told him to come 
inside. He came inside, and I accepted the telegram. By the 
way, there were two that I signed for at the same time, that is 
what I meant by ^' telegrams." 

Mr. Wilson. — Will you speak a little louder, we cannot hear 
you. 

The Witness. — The messenger who preceded me came up to the 
office and rapped on the shelf and said he had a couple of tele- 
grams. I was very busy, and asked him to come inside. He 
came in and delivered me two telegrams which I signed for. 

Q. Can you tell us to whom they were addressed ? A. Pardon 
me; the second telegram I understand had nothing to do with 
this affair whatever ; the one telegram you refer to — the second 
telegram is only a coincidence that the two came up together. 

Q. Can you tell us to whom they were addressed, those two 
telegrams that were left with you at the same time? A. One 
was addressed to Steve Stilwell, the Senator, Senate Chamber. 

Q. Do you recall there was any number on the envelope ? A. 
There was a number on the envelope, yes, sir. 

Q. Do you recall what it was? A. I do not recall the num- 
ber, no, sir. 

Q. Was there anything else left with you than the telegram 
and envelope ? A. Well, there was another telegram accompany- 
ing it. 

Q. In regard to this one, there was no slip? A. Well, a 
sheet for me to sign, showing that I had received it. 

Q. Is this (handing to witness) the sheet that I show you? 
A. Yes, that is the sheet. 

Q. Did you sign it? A. I did. 

Q. Can you tell us which — is there more than one signature 
on there of yours ? A. My name appears twice there. 

Q. Can you tell us whether one is receiving for the telegram 
addressed to Senator Stilwell? A. It is. 

Q. Are you able in any way to identify the number — to 
recall the number on that envelope ? A. l^o, I could not. 



87 

Mr. Wilson. — Tlie Attorney-General stands right between the 
witness. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I do not do it very often, bnt I 
have got to stand somewhere when I am moving aroimd. 

Q. ]^ow, was there more than one telegram left with you that 
afternoon for delivery to Senator Stilwell ? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. That was the only one ? A. That was the only one. 

Q. What did you do with that telegram? A. Well, I held it 
about ten minutes there, until I finished my duties in the office, 
and I took the telegram and went around to room 230 on the 
second floor and saw — didn't see Senator Stilwell there. I 
came back to the Senate Chamber and went inside and handed 
it to one of the attendants at the gate, at the brass railing as you 
enter the Senate Chamber, and requested him to give it to Senator 
Stilwell. 

Q. That was one of the attendants in the Senate ? A. One of 
the attendants, yes. 

Q. Do you know who he was? A. I could not now say what 
attendant it was. 

Q. Did you get any receipt for it ? A. No, sir. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. 
Cross-examination by Mr. Wilson: 

Q. You know Senator Stilwell well? A. Why, I know the 
Senator by sight pretty well, yes, sir. 

Q. You have charge of just what? A. Why, my duties are 
in charge of the Postal Telegraph Cable Company in the Capitol. 

Q. You have nothing to do with the Post Office ? A. I^o, sir. 

Q. !N"ow, is it a fact that these Senators, or some of them, re- 
ceive many telegrams in a day ? A. It is. 

Q. And Senator Stilwell was Chairman of one of the im- 
portant committees, the Committee on Codes ? A. Yes. 

Q. And to your knowledge was he in the habit of receiving a 
good many telegrams on occasion ? A. He was, yes, sir, of ttimes, 
yes, sir, quite a number. 

Q. And a great many letters ? A. Yes — I couldn't say about 
iiis letters. I withdraw that statement. 

Q. It would be the ordinary thing to receive many telegrams ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. !N'ow, whether or not this telegram that he showed you was 



88 

contained in tlie envelope that you handled, have you any means 
of knowing ? A. I have not, except by the number. 

Q. Then all you could say is that on a certain date a messen- 
ger boy delivered to you an envelope containing something ad- 
dressed to Steve Stilwell, if I understood you? A. Yes, sir; 
Senator 'Stephen Stilwell, Senate Chamber, Albany, N^ew York. 

Q. Do you remember just what the address was? A. I think 
it was Senator Steve Stilwell. I think it was written on there 
Steve. I am quite sure. 

Q. You gave it to an attendant ? A. I gave it to an attendant 
at the door, just as you enter the Senate Chamber. 

Q. Now, if it was not for your receipt that they showed you, 
would you know when you received it ? That is, are you relying on 
your recollection, or are you relying upon the book? A. Under 
ordinary circumstances I would not know, because it is an every- 
day occurrence, and I don't tax my mind with those things. It 
is not necessary. 

Mr. Wilson. — I think that is all. 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Did you see what was done with that telegram after you 
gave it to the attendant ? A. No, I did not. The gentleman 
took it and disappeared. What he did with it I could not say. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I now offer that in evidence. I 
believe that it is supported, not only by the proof we have offered, 
but by the testimony Mr. Kendall gave, in which he says that he 
was called up on the phone after he sent that telegram by Senator 
Stilwell, and Senator Stilwell said ^^ What do you mean by that 
telegram ? " Now, that identifies the telegram, I think, and proves 
its delivery. That is the telegram that Mr. Kendall said he sent 
on that day. 

The Chairman. — The only proof here, so far is the statement 
made by Kendall, and you have traced the delivery of this 
telegram to one of the Senate employees and it stops there. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Now we have his admission over 
the telephone that the telegram was received. I think it must be 
regarded as having that effect. He said, '^ What do you mean by 
sending me that telegram ? " If that story is true, then that is 
an admission of the receipt of the telegram. 



89 

The Chairman. — What was the name of the manager that was 
on the stand this morning? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Mr. Prmm. 

The Chairman. — Did he identify this telegram as being the 
telegram he delivered to the boy ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I think so. He is here now. 

W. jM. Pruyn recalled. 

Direct examination continued by Attorney-General Carmody: 
Q. You were shown a copy of the telegram this morning. Did 

you testify on the subject of whether or not that is a copy? 

(Handing paper to witness.) A. I did not testify regarding this 

one at all. The one from JSTew York. 

Q. I will ask you now if you are able to identify that as a copy 

of a telegram that was delivered by you to this boy, who was on 

the stand recently, for delivery ? A. This is the water copy of the 

original message that was sent to i^ew York. 

Senator Blauvelt. — And ^vhich was delivered to this messenger 
boy? 

The Witness. — Which was delivered to this messenger boy? . 

Cross-examination by Mr. Wilson : 

Q. How do you know it is ? A. Well, original telegrams — 

Q. I don't care about that. You are drawing that inference 
from the fact that that is the Avay you do business, but how do you 
know that this particular piece of paper here is the copy of another 
piece of paper that was delivered to this messenger boy on a cer- 
tain date ; how do you know that ? A. Only from the fact that 
that is the only copy in our files. 

Q. Then all you know about it is because that would be your 
usual course of business ? A. Absolutely. 

Q. And having found this in your files, you infer that if any 
copy was delivered to him, it was a true copy of this ? A. That is 
correct. 

Q. That is all there is about it ? A. That is all. 

Mr. AVilson. — I move to strike out his evidence — that is his 
evidence upon the direct, because it now appears that he knows 
nothing about it. 



90 

The Chairman. — Is that the custom hy which you identify 
papers passing from your office ? 

The Witness. — It is. 

Attorney-General Carmocly. — This is the record from the office. 

The Chairman. — The telegram is admitted in evidence and sub- 
jected to the Committee afterwards striking it out. We reserve 
the right -to strike that from the records. 

Said telegram was admitted and marked State's Exhibit II. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — -^lay I read it into the record, 
please ? 

The Chairman. — Yes. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — " l^ew York, March 25th, 1913. 
Stephen J. Stilwell, Senate Chamber, Albany, ]^ew York. ' Five 
four thing as law seems to me better than present uncertainties.' 
Bears no signature. Signed ' JS'o Sig.' 259 p. m." 

Q. Can you tell wdiat that indicates ? A. Time received at 
Albany. 

Q. The other '' ISTo sig." '( A. Meaning no signature. 
Q. There was no signature to the telegram. ]^o, sir. 

Ethel G. Allen, called in behalf of the State, having been 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Direct examination by Attorney-General Carmody : 

Q. What is your full name ? A. Ethel G. Allen. 

Q. AVhere are you employed ? A. ^ew York Bank N'ote 
Company. 

Q. Were you in their employ on or about the 29th day of 
March, last ? A. Yes. 

Q. In what capacity ? A. Stenographer. 

Q. Do you remember whether you took a dictation of a letter 
on that date, addressed to Stephen J. Stihvell, Senate Codes Com- 
mittee, Albanv? A. The 29th of March. 

Q. The 29th of March? A. Yes, I did. 

Q. You remember the letter, do you ? A. I do. 

Q. Who dictated the letter to you ? A. Mr. Eield. 

Mr. Wilson. — We again object to this method of examination, 
taking Mr. Kendall from the stand, and interpolating constantly 



91 

the evidence of other witnesses, imtil we have had an opportunity 
to cross-examine him. There have been four different witnesses 
put upon the stand here, where if Mr. Kendall's examination 
had been completed, and they had been called by them, we would 
have had an opportunity to cross-examine. 

The Chairman. — Comiselor, we will have to overrule that ob- 
jection. We think this expedites the work of the Committee. 

Mr Wilson. — Yery well. 

The Chairman. — And furthermore, I will give you this privi- 
lege, that you may recall any of those witnesses. 

Mr. Wilson. — -Yes, and they will keep them here until we 
are through with them. 

The Chairman. — Oh, yes, the witnesses will be kept here until 
you are through with them. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The reason it is necessary to 
do this is because counsel objected to my proving by Mr. Kendall. 

Q. Who dictated that letter to you? A. Mr. Field. 

Q. What did you do with the dictation after you received it? 
A. He dictated it right on the machine. I didn't take any notes. 

Q. You wrote it out on the machine ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then what did you do with it? A. I gave the letter to 
Mr. Field and Mr. Field gave it to Mr. Kendall. 

Q. Was there anything else done by the latter with it? A. I 
copied it in the letter book. 

Q. I show you the letter book and ask you if you can identify 
that as your letter press book? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Calling your attention to page 555, is that it? A. Yes.- 

Q. Can you tell us whether you made that copy that appears 
on there? Ye-s, I copied it. 

Q. At that date? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And is that a copy of the letter that you wrote to Senator 
Stilwell dictated to you by Mr. Field ? A. A"es, sir. 

Q. Made by you? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you mail that letter? A. I don't remember. 

Q. You did not? A. I don't remember whether I mailed it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. 



92 

Cross-examinatiou bj Mr. Wilson: 

Q. You are a stenographer, are you? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many letters were dictated to you on that day ? A. I 
don't remember. 

Q. What is that? A. I don't remember. 

Q. A good many ? A. I don't think there were so many. 

Q. Are you the only stenographer in the office ? A. Yes. 

Q. And do you take rapidly at dictation? A. ^ot very 
rapidly. 

Q. And did he at the same time that he dictated this letter dic- 
tate other letters to you ? A. I^ot at the same time. 

Q. What is that ? A. Xot at the same time. 

Q. On the same day ? A. On the same day, yes, sir. 

Q. That is, he did not talk twice at once? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. What time of day was it that this letter was dictated to 
you ? I don't remember the time. I think it was in the after- 
noon. 

Q. What was your practice about taking letters ? A. Some- 
times I took them by dictation, took the notes, and sometimes I 
took them right on the machine. 

Q. Just a little louder, keep your voice up. A. Some of 
them, sometimes I took them stenographically, and sometimes I 
took the dictation right on the typewriter. 

Q. Did you preserve j^our notes of letters that you took that 
day? A. Yes, all that I took stenographically. 

Q. And you took this one stenographically ? A. I did not. 

Q. AVhat is that ? A. I did not. 

Q. You did not ? A. No, sir. 

Q. He sat down then at the typewriter with you and dictated it 
to you ? A. I think he was standing by the typewriter. 

Q. ^Yhai is that ? A. He was standing. 

Q. Well, at any rate, you took it from him direct to the type- 
writer? A. Yes. 

Q. 'So when he got through you w^ere through ? A. I was 
through, until I copied it. 

Q. I see. How many letters did he dictate to you at that time 
at that one sitting? A. Just that one. 

Q. Was that all ? A. Yes. 

Q. And was that the only one you put in the letter book at 
that time ? A. No ; I copy the letters altogether. 

Q. What is that ? A. I copied all the letters together. 



93 

Q. You can tell by looking at the letter book bow many letters 
he dictated to you that day, can't you ? A. Yes. 

Q. And you can tell who they were to ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you can tell whether you put them in the letter book 
in the order in which they were dictated to you, can you not? 
A. ]^o, I can't tell that. 

Q. Well, ordinarily after he dictated the letters to you he 
Avould sign them ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you read them over to him or did he read them him- 
self ? A. He read them himself. 

Q. And then passed them back to you to place in the letter 
book ? A. Yes. 

Q. And did you put all of your letters of that day into the letter 
book at the same time ? A. Yes. 

Q. And made your letter press copies at the same time ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. 'Now, what time did they come out of the book, if you 
know ? A. It was after 5. 

Q. What is that ? A. It would be after 5. 

Q. It would be after 5 o'clock ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. ISTow, after your letters had been taken out of the copy book 
would there be any occasion for his reading them over again? 
A. No, I don't think so. 

Q. Then what would you do with them ? A. I would generally 
mail them. 

Q. You would put them into envelopes ? A. Yes. 

Q. And address your envelopes in typewriting or with a pen? 
A. 1^0, with typewriting. 

Q. With the typewriter ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you would address the letter, I suppose, on the envel- 
ope the same as it was headed on the letter ? A. Yes. 

Q. And then if you did not have other instructions, you would 
mail them, would you; you would put them in the mail box? 
A. Yes. 

Q. JSTow, do you recollect how many letters you did write that 
day ? A. No, I do not ? 

Q. Do you remember how many you put in the letter book? 
A. I do not remember that either. 

Q. Do you remember how many envelopes you addressed? A. 
No, I do not remember that. 



94 

Q. Do you remember whether you mailed any letters that day ? 
A. I don't remember. 

Q. It was pretty nearly dark when you got through ? A. Yes, 
it was after 5. 

Q. What is that ? A. It was after 5 o'clock. 

Q. And do you stay in the office until after 5 o'clock Satur- 
days ? A. Yes. 

Q. What time did you leave the office? A. It is generally 
around half past 5. 

Q. Will you tell us what day of the week this was ? A. The 
29th of March ? 

Q. Yes. A. Saturday. 

Q. You think it was on Saturday ? A. Yes. 

Q. But as to what letters you mailed, if any, or whether you 
mailed any you do not now recall ? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. Is there anybody else in the office in the habit of taking the 
mail? A. Sometimes Mr. Field, sometimes Mr. Kendall. 

Q. You are in a large building ? A. Yes. 

Q. With large signs out across the street ? A. Yes. 

Q. And do you have a letter box down there ? A. Across the 
street. 

Q. Do you have any chute in the building ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Ordinarily some one of you would take the mail when it 
came closing up time and take it over across the road and put it 
in the mail box ? A. Yes. 

Q. Will you please tell us how many letters you did that way 
that day, that is how many you wrote ? A. I don't remem- 
ber. We have got the book ; will you take the book and tell us ? 
A. (Examining letter press copy book) Five. 

(The witness speaks to Mr. Wilson inaudibly.) 

Mr. Wilson. — She says she knows the letters were not copied 
until after 5 o'clock. 

Q. And these are the letters that appear in the books ? A. 
Yes. 

Mr. Wilson (examining letter book). — I am not reading 
these letters ; I am just simply looking at the dates. 

Q. ISTow, at the time that letter was dictated to you and you 
put it on the typewriter, how long would you say it took ? A. I 
haven't any idea now. 



95 

Q. Could you tell from the length of it; ten or fifteen or 
twenty minutes ? A. Oh, no. 

Q. I^^ot as long as that? A. E'o, sir. 

Q. Did YOU notice anything unusual in the appearance of Mr. 
Kendall, in his manner, at the time that he dictated it ? A. Mr. 
Field dictated it. 

Q. What is that ? A. Mr. Field dictated it. 

Q. Then Mr. Kendall did not dictate the letter at all? A. 
Mr. Field. 

Q. Mr. Field dictated the letter ? A. Yes. 

Q. Won't you kindly tell me where Mr. Kendall was and what 
he was doing ? A. I think Mr. Kendall was in his private office. 

Q. What is that? A. I think he w^as in his private office. 

Q. You think Mr. Kendall was in his private office ? A. Yes. 

Q. Won't you kindly tell me which of these letters Field 
dictated and which ones Kendall dictated (showing letter book) ? 
A. (indicating). Mr. Kendall dictated those three. 

Q. Mr. Kendall dictated three addressed to whom; just give 
the addresses but not the contents ? A. F. M. Smith. 

Q. F. M. Smith of where? A. Paducah, Kentucky. The 
American Type Founders Company. 

Q. American Type Foundry Company, and the address? A. 
Duane street, 'New York. F. A. Ringler & Company, Park 
place, New York. 

Q. And the other two were addressed to whom? A. These 
were dictated by Mr. Field; one addressed to Honorable Senator 
Stephen J. Stilwell. 

Q. The first one dictated by Mr. Field was addressed or 
directed to the Honorable Senator Stephen J. Stilwell ? A. Yes, 
sir. Senate Codes Committee, Albany, New York; and the other 
one dictated b}^ Mr. Field was addressed to Benjamin Bloom. 

Q. Had you observed that it was a habit — you took often at 
the dictation of Mr. Kendall? A. Yes. 

Q. And also at Mr. Field's dictation ? Yes. 

Q. And the manner of expression is quite different between 
the two men, isn't it, the language is different? A. Yes. 

Q. It is decidedly different, isn't it? A. Yes. 

Q. Couldn't you tell from reading any two leters in that book 
if one was dictated by Mr. Kendall and the other by Field, 
couldn't you tell which one dictated the letter? A. I could not 
tell them all. 



96 

Q. You could not tell them all, but most of them you could ? 
A. Some of them I could. 

Q. Did you ever know Mr. Kendall to dictate a letter or ad- 
dress one to a Senator as Honorable Senator Stephen J. S til- 
well ? A. I think he has. 

Q. Used Honorable and Senator at the same time? A. I 
don't remember. 

Q. Is that good grammar? 

The Chairman. — It is not grammar at all. 
Mr. Wilson. — All right I won't go into that. 

Q. Won't you find me a letter in that book, if you can, dictated 
by Mr. Kendall — 

Mr. Wilson. — Am I taking too much time? 

The Chairman. — 'No, go right ahead, counselor. 

Mr. Wilson. — I am only illustrating the importance of cross- 
examining the witnesses after he gets through. 

Q. Do you think you can find me one that was dictated by 
Mr. Kendall where he ever addressed a Senator as Honorable 
Senator? A. I don't know; I will see. 

Q. Try it, and then find me one that was ever dictated by 
Field that he did not address them that way. If you don't find 
one readily I won't ask you (after a pause). I see there is no 
index? A. Oh yes, there is an index to the book. 

Q. Will you let me see the index? A. (showing index to 
counsel). 

Q. I see it is indexed in the back. Do you know what relation 
Mr. Field is to Mr. Kendall ? A. I think he is second cousin. 

Q. You think he is a cousin ? A. Second cousin. 

Q. You have no knowledge as to whether that letter was ever 
mailed or not? A. E'o. 

Q. That is, you don't know. A. I don't remember. 

Q. And if it was you don't remember who mailed it ? A. No, 
sir. 

Q. It would be your practice after taking 'them from the letter 
book to fold them and place them in directed envelopes and to 
stamp them ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And if you stayed there until night you would probably 
have to mail them, wouldn't you ? A. Yes, unless Mr. Field or 



97 

Mr. Kendall went before I did. If Mr. Field or Mr. Kendall 
went before I did they niigbt take them? 

Q. They might take the mail ? A. Yes. 

Q. Do yon remember which one of yon left there last ? A. 
'No, sir. 

Q. Did yon know Mr. Kendall was not there after 3 o'clock 
that afternoon ? A. I do not remember that he was not. 

• Q. Can yon say yon remember he was ? A. No, I cannot 
say that. 

Q. Yon cannot say that ? A. I cannot say that. 

Q. Well then, as a matter of fact yon don't know where Mr. 
Kendall was on the Saturday afternoon after three o'clock do 
you? A. No. 

Q. Yon don't? A. No. 

Q. What time of day did he dictate two letters to you ? A. I 
don't remember that either. 

Q. What is that? A. I don't remember. 

Q. Just look to your letterbook and see if you cannot tell from 
that the letters that he dictated were dictated in the morning, and 
that the letters dictated by Mr. Field were dictated in the after- 
noon ? A. I could not tell by that. 

Q. You cannot tell by that ? A. :N"o. 

• Q. Since you looked at that letterbook you can't tell which 
letters were dictated in the morning and which in the afternoon? 
A. E"o. 

Q. But you can tell which letters were dictated by Mr. Field 
and which by him ? A. Yes. 

Q. And Mr. Kendall ought to have kno^vn when he looked at 
the letterbook whether he dictated that letter or not? A. He 
signed it. 

Q. He ought to have known whether he dictated that or not? 
A. I think he would. He and Mr. Field were talking. 

Q. I did not ask you that. I asked you whether he ought to 
have kno^vn whether he dictated it or not ? A. I don't know. 

Q. Well, I won't go into that. As I recall, the letters dictated 
by Mr. Kendall appear first in the letter-book. Am I right about 
that? A. Yes. 

Q. The letters dictated by Mr. Kendall are copied first in the 
letter book? A. Yes. 

Mr. Wilson.— That is all. 



98 

-He-direct examination by Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Will yon tnrn to that letter, please. Is that Mr. Kendall's 

signatnre to that letter (indicating) ? A. Yes. 

Q. That was made before it was pnt in the copy-book ? A. Yes. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Mr. Kendall. 

Mr. Byrne. — What was that last copy ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is the sigTiature of Mr. Ken- 
dall to that letter made before that copy. I now offer that copy in 
evidence. It already appears Mr. Kendall deposited the letter 
himself in the mailbox. We established proof of the accuracy of 
the copy before it was offered in evidence. 

George H. Kendall recalled. 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Mr. Kendall — 

The Chairman. — You have an objection on that already. 

Mr. Wilson. — Yes, we object to it on the ground that they have 
not shown that the letter was ever mailed. E'ow, the closest they 
have ever come to it was when they got him to swear — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I object to that remark, Got him 
to swear. 

Mr. Wilson. — I withdraw that. 

The Chairman. — That is withdrawn. 

Mr. Wilson. — I withdraw it. I did not mean to be offensive 
to you. 

The Chairman. — It is stricken from the record. 

Mr. Wilson. — I say, modifying it, that at least he persuaded 
himself to swear — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I object to that as improper. 

Mr. Wilson. — Put it any way you have a mind to put it. 

AttO'mey~General Carmody. — You are putting it and I object. 
^' Persuaded himself to swear '^ is improper. 

The Chairman. — Strike that out. 



Mr. Wilson. — This is what occurred. Twice he said, '^ I 
think/' and then he said, '' If on Saturday," and with the aid of 
counsel he was told it was on Saturday. He said then, '' I mailed 
it and I think I put it in the letter box." That is what he testi- 
fied to. 

Independent of that, I object to this evidence as utterly in- 
competent, as being a declaration in his own behalf that required 
no answer, and to which there was no opportunity to answer, even 
if it had been received. How can his naked declaration be com- 
petent evidence against this accused man ? 

The Chairman. — Counsel, we will overrule the objection and 
allow the evidence to remain in. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I would like to have marked 
instead of the copy book, a copy which I can produce. I will 
read from the book in evidence. 

The Chairman. — Yes, read into the record. 

Attorney-General Carmody : 

''March 29th, 1913. 
'^ Ho^^. Stephen J. Stilwell, 

''Senate Codes Committee, Albany, N. Y.: 

''Dear Sir. — Your alibi of the 27th received, but I don'tthink 
your explanation of telegTam is conclusive. For one reason, it 
is not given until after I had notified you of my intention to 
send the following telegram to the Governor and every member 
of the Legislature. 

" ' Stilwell declines to report Stock Exchange Bill :No. 1188 
out of Committee unless I pay him two thousand dollars for his 
Committee and fifteen hundred dollars for Assembly Committee 
on Codes. Have already paid him two hundred and fifty dol- 
lars for drawing bill. Have documents sustaining these state^- 
ments. What shall I do to get justice?' 

" Your explanation above referred to having been written on 
the 2Tth, which was two days after the sending of the telegram 
which it explained. 

" Yours very truly, 

"GEOEGE H. KE^^DALL." 

I would like to submit to counsel a copy, a correct transcript 
from that record, and ask the privilege of having that marked so 
we won't have to leave the book here. 



100 

Mr. Wilson. — We must decline to do that. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I ask the Committee to do it. 

The Chairman. — What is the reason the book can not be kept 
here ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I suppose it can be, but it 
would be so inconvenient. 

Mr. Wilson. — We want to cross-examine Mr. Kendall in refer- 
ence to it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — You will have that pleasure in 
just a moment. 

Mr. Wilson. — It won't be any pleasure. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — As soon as I can get this dis- 
posed of. 

The Chairman. — Mark that book Exhibit 15. 

Book marked State's Exhibit 15 of this date. 

The Chairman. — We will take a recess for five minutes. 



EECESS. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Wilson: 

Q. How old are you, Mr. Kendall ? A. Eifty-nine years, sir. 

Q. Hadn't you better sit down? A. They all tell me over 
there that they cannot hear me at all. I prefer to sit, but I am 
willing to stand. 

Q. Where were you born ? A. Slatersville, Mass. 

Q. Whereabouts, in Massachusetts ? A. Slatersville. 

Q. Whereabout ? A. West of Boston. 

Q. How far w^est of Boston ? A. Oh, twenty miles or so. 

Q. How long did you live there? A. I left there in infancy. 
I don't remember the place except from seeing it afterwards. 

Q. And then where did you go ? A. Blackstone, Mass. 

Q. How long did you stay there? A. Till my father bought 
some property in E'ew Jersey — until I was four years old, I 
think. 

Q. How long did you live in I^ew Jersey ? A. Three years. 

Q. Then where did you go ? A. Went back to Blackstone. 



101 

Q. Where is Blackstone? A. Blackstone is, I think, about 
four or five miles from Slatersville ; might be five or six. 

Q. How long did you stay there ? A. A very short time, sir, 
when we moved to Woonsocket, where I lived till I was 16 years 
of age. I got my schooling in Woonsocket. 

Q. Then where? A. Well, it is a little longer than that. 
Till I was 17 or 18 years, when I came to 'New York city. 

Q. Eeaching New York city about when? A. I was 18 years 
of age, sir. 

How long did you live there? A. Practically continuously 
from then till now, only I have been in Europe a great deal. I 
am there a quarter of each year now, June, July and August. 

Q. Where is your residence ? A. My country estate, sir, is in 
Staten Island, just across from New York city. It is within 
seven miles of the City Hall. 

Q. Your country estate consists of what ? A. Well, a house 
about 90 feet square, and there is a stable probably 40 by 60 or 
70, three outhouses, a bowling alley, and various other buildings 
on 40 acres of ground — 41 I think it is. 

Q. How much of your time do you spend there ? A. About — 
I spend the half seasons there. That would be perhaps two 
months in spring and three to four months in the fall. The sum- 
mers here are so hard on me I have to go away. I don't stay 
here; have not for many years in sumjner. Always spend my 
summers abroad. 

Q. Where do you go ? A. Oh, I have been everywhere from 
Africa to the Arctics. 

Q. How long were you in the Arctics ? A. Not very long. 

Q. Not with Dr. Cook, I hope ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Now your residence in New York is where? A. I have 
lived at half a dozen hotels. 

Q. I don't care for them. Where is it now ? A. At the Earl 
Hotel, 103 Waverly Place, next door to Washington Square. 
This is my ninth winter. 

Q. How long have you lived there ? A. This is my ninth 
winter, I believe, sir. 

Q. Your family consists of whom? A. Wife and daughter, 
who was married the 12th of October, this last year. 

Q. I was laboring under the impression — I had been told 
that Mr. Field married your daughter. That is not so? A. It 
is like some other information, quite incorrect. 



102 

Q. How is Mr. Field related to you ? A. His mother was my 
own cousin. 

Q. So he is a cousin of yours? A. 'No, sir, he is a second 
cousin of mine, or a third. 

Q. A second cousin is a cousin? A. I accept it, if you say it. 
• Q. You prefer to recognize him as vice-president rather than 
as a relative ? A. It has never occurred to me, sir, to size him 
up in any way, particularly, except that he is a very fine, honor- 
able man, whom I am proud to have in the family. 

Q. A gentlemen who dictates many letters for you? A. He 
does, indeed. Not for me, no sir. He dictates many letters. 

Q. And he is the gentleman who at your request listens at a 
second telephone while you are talking? A. Just correct, when 
there is a scoundrel at the other end. 

Q. So you get both ends in communication ? A. That's it, yes. 

Q. E'ow, what is your son-in-law's name ? A. Bellamore, sir, 
David H. Bellamore. 

Q. Is he here ? A. JSTo sir, never has been ; that is to say dur- 
ing these proceedings. 

Q. Has he any connection with the business in any way? A. 
I^ot the slightest. 

Q. I see no occasion for bringing his name into the matter? 
A. I^either do I. 

Q. I apologize to you, sir; I should not have done it if I had 
been informed to the contrary. A. Accepted. 

Q. E'ow, what was the first business you engaged in ? A. Just 
what I am in now, except it was not so high a class of the arc. 
At 18, sir, I received a salary of $1,500 a year. 

Q. N^ever mind that. So you were engaged in the same bus- 
iness then as now. A. Printing business; it was lithographing 
business then. 

Q. What business do you claim to be engaged in now ? A. 
Printing and engraving. 

Q. You went to work for who ? A. When ? 

Q. When you were 18 ? A. Poletro & Eainer Company. 

Q. They were engravers ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that has been your principal business as a printer, 
since that time ? A. You will have to define that a little other- 
wise than that. It is susceptible to being answered yes and no, 
and half a dozen other ways. If the question will be repeated, 
I will answer it accurately. 

Q. Please repeat it, sir. 



103 

'^ Q. And that has been yonr principal hiisiness as a printer, 
since that time?" A. From the time I left my school, the en- 
graving and printing business, up to the present moment has been 
practically my only business. I own real estate and have been a 
director in banks, but I have no business outside of the engrav- 
ing business. 

Q. You have been actively engaged in some kind of business 
all your life ? A. Been 34 years on this job. 

Q. And 32 years of it on this particular job ? A. I have 
been the controlling spirit of this bank note business for 34 years, 
since 18Y9. 

Q. Well, you have not printed any bank notes, have you ? A. 
Yes, making some now. 

Q. For Avho ? A. Present one, 'San Salvador. 

Q. Are you an engraver yourself? A. IsTo, sir. 

Q. Did you ever learn the trade? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. You may give me the names of the engravers that are 
employed in your establishment? A. At the present time? 

Q. Yes. A. Mr. John B. Fisher; Mr. M. I^emeth; Mr, Louis 
iStark; Mr. Tulu — I have forgotten his first name. Shall I 
ascertain it ? 

Q. I don't care particularly A. And two younger men named 
Dagenhart and Phalen. 

Q. How long have they been in your employ ? A. Mr. Fisher 
has been in my employ 26 years. Mr. Nemeth has been in my 
employ 25 years plus. I think Mr. Fisher is more. He is here; 
you can ask him. Louis 'Stark from 15 — say about 15. Tulu, 
I cannot say any longer than ten to fifteen. 

Q. Well then, you have something — A. I have not answered 
your question. Dagenhart a short time, year or two, not more 
than three, and Phalen perhaps one year. I think that covers 
the list, sir. 

Q. That makes about how many engravers ? A. Six. 

Q. Those are expert engravers, are they? A. ISTo sir, only 
four of them. 

Q. Four of them are experts? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They are competent to execute first class work? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. What wages do you pay them ? A. I pay Mr. Shall 

I answer all these things, sir? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Unless I object. 



104 

Mr. Lyon. — It seems to me, if the Chairman please, that this 
is a matter that is not pertinent, inquiring into the wages he pays 
his employees. If the Committee thinks it is required, I have no 
objection. 

The Chairman. — It is not very material, as far as the Com- 
mittee can see. If cousel desires it though — 

Q. Do you object to stating the wages you pay them? A. I 
object to it, sir, on these grounds : That I consider it an invasion 
of my private affairs, which are in no wise connected with this 
case, and that can in no wise concern you in smj fair treatment 
of me on the stand ; that's all. 

Q. Well, if my information should be that you had at no time 
within eighteen years, to exceed two expert engravers, would you 
think then I would be justified in asking you ? A. I should think 
it would be on a line, sir, with your misinformation about my 
son-in-law. You certainly are very badly misled, because I have 
had as high as twenty-one. 

The Chairman. — Gentlemen, we will have to proceed. 

Mr. Wilson. — That is all on that subject. 

Q. When did you first commence your activities against the 
ISTew York Stock Exchange ? About 1880, sir. 

Q. And what portion of your time and thought had you de- 
voted to that question ? A. Perhaps a half of one per cent., sir. 

Q. That would be a few days each year. A. Please make your 
own computations. 

Q. A half of one per cent. Did you testify before the Com- 
mittee that for thirty-two years you had devoted a very large part 
of your time to taking care of these gentlemen? A. What gen- 
tlemen do you refer to, sir. 

Q. To the 1,100 gentlemen that compose the Stock Exchange? 
A. I do not remember, sir, whether I so testified or not. 

Q. You reduce it now to one half of one per cent. ? A. I re- 
duce nothing, sir. You asked me what percentage of my time, 
what portion of my time I put in in taking care of these gentle- 
men, which you explained as members of the 'New York Stock 
Exchange? A. That would be about two and one-half days a 
year, I figure ? A. I am not responsible for your figures. 

Q. Well, are you responsible for your language ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, kindly tell me whether you did so testify ? A. I do 
not remember, sir. 



105 

Q. Did you testify befor the Pujo Committee ? A. I did. 

Q. To what extent? A. I sat there eight days under sub- 
poena and have forgotten the length of time that I was on the 
stand. 

Q. Well, do you recall what you stated before the committee? 
A. I do not recall sir, but if you ask me concerning any facts I 
will tell you if they are within my knowledge. 

Q. You have seen your evidence as published. I show you a 
— . I will let the stenographer mark that Exhibit 1. 

The Chairman. — Mark it for identification only. 

Paper referred to received and marked Defendant's Exhibit 
1 for identification of this date. 

Q. 'NoWy when did you testify before that Committee ? A. I 
think^ sir, that it was December 13th, but that is subject to any- 
thing you say to me about it, sir. 

Q. May I show you the printed evidence? A. With pleasure, 
sir. 

Q. I show you Defendant's Exhibit 1 for identification. You 
recognize that as containing a true copy of your evidence given 
before a Congressional Committee at Washington December 16, 
1912 ? A. I do not, sir. I have never seen this paper before, 
sir. I have never seen any paper similar to it. I have never seen 
any transcript of my evidence before the Pujo Committee, sir. 

Q. Are you sure — . A. This may be it. It may not be it. 
I don't deny it. I don't admit it. 

Q. Then you don't either admit or deny that your evidence is 
correctly contained in that report ? A. Don't admit — . 

Q. What is — . A. Wait a moment until I answer you, sir. 
You state correctly, sir. 

Q. What is that? A. I answer yes, sir. 

Q. So that you never until now have seen the document which 
purports to be the evidence of George H. Kendall taken at Wash- 
ington, D. C, Monday, December 16, 1912, before the sub- 
committee of the Committee on Banking and Currency in the 
House of Representatives? A. That is stated truly. 

Q. That is not stated truly? A. You do state it truly. 

Q. That is, the book states truly? A. ISlo, sir. I did not 
state so at all. If the stenographer will read that question I will 
try to answer yes or no. 

Q. Just look at that and see if that is your evidence in extenso 
by questions and answers before a sub-committee of the House 



106 

of Eepresentatives on December 16, 1912 ? A. It so purports 
to be, sir, by the reading, but I could not tell it without reading 
it all through. 

Q. Were you examined on that day? A. The 16th. 

Q. Yes. A. If you say so I have no doubt of it. It was the 
middle of December. It may have been. 

Q. I don't say so. The book says so. It is a report, sir, of 
the evidence? A. I beg your pardon, you said so a moment ago. 
This says December 16, 1912. I don't deny testifying before the 
Committee on that day. 

Q. Do you admit it? A. ^N'o, I have no doubt it is true. 

Q. How am I going to find out ? A. I will admit it for any 
purpose you want me to. 

Q. Well, I want you to admit that contains the testimony you 
gave before that committee and it is correctly set forth in that 
House document ? A. Well, you have queer ideas if you think — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — ^I suggest that the witness be 
permitted to examine the testimony at some other time and not 
take up the time of the Committee now. The witness should not 
be required to testify in regard to that testimony until he has 
read it. 

Mr. Wilson. — Here is the evidence of the House Committee. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — 'No matter. He is entitled to 
read it to see whether it is correctly reported there. 

Mr. Wilson. — I want him to read it. I don't want him to read 
it all through. 

The Chairman. — What is the relevance of this testimony? 

Senator Brown. — Have you some particular passage you can 
indicate to the Committee here ? 

Mr. Wilson. — The point is this. He testified at length before 
a joint committee upon the resolution to incorporate the Stock 
Exchange and he purported to quote in extenso from the Pujo 
evidence which is contained in your own record that I have here. 
I am somewhat surprised when he says that he had never seen 
the evidence before the Pujo Committee. 

Senator Brown. — I am not asking you that. I am asking you 
if you have any passages in this evidence that are quite pertinent 
to this inquiry which you want to indicate to the Committee. 



107 

Mr. Wilson. — I prefer, if you will permit me, to let him say 
whether this is the evidence and then call his attention later on 
to such portions of it as I think are pertinent as we proceed. 

Mr. Lyon. — I submit that Mr. Kendall should not be com- 
pelled to answer and his statement that he is not able to state 
without reading it is a sufficient answer for the present. 

Mr. Wilson. — I think I am entitled to know whether this is the 
evidence he gave before the Pujo committee. That is all I am 
trying to get. 

The Witness. — To end the wrangle and allow us to proceed, sir, 
I will admit everything there is correct. 

Mr. Wilson. — Very well. 

The Witness. — I have never read it, this paper or a similar 
paper, but I will admit that is my evidence and allow you to pro- 
ceed. 

Mr. Wilson. — Upon examination if there is any portion of it he 
wants to correct he can do so. 

The Chairman. — Yes. You understand that? 

The Witness.— Sir? 

The Chairman. — If upon examination of the evidence to-night 
you find something in there that is not correct, it can be corrected 
here. 

The Witness. — Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — At this point I want to call atten- 
tion to the fact that this is not cross-examination. It is not an ex- 
amination of anything that was brought out of direct examination^ 
and if the Committee admits it at all it must be admitted as con- 
clusion against counsel upon all the questions that are asked. 

Senator Brown. — May I look it over for a moment ? 

The Chairman. — It is true there is nothing in this evidence that 
is proof of any fact charged in the resolution of the Senate. 

By Mr. Wilson : 

Q. How long were you before that Committee ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I object to it now as immaterial. 



108 

Mr. Wilson. — As there will be an important question liere as to 
his version — 

The Chairman. — You want this, do jou ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Yes sir. 

The Chairman. — Very well, we will overrule the objection. 

A. I think that it was eight days, but there probably was a 
Sunday besides, a Sunday or two in between. I think it was eight 
days. That is my recollection. 

Q. You testified at length before that Committee concerning 
the incorporation of the Stock Exchange and the reasons why it 
should be done, did you not? A. Oh, no. That was not the 
crux of my testimony at all, as I remember it. 

Q. You did not testify concerning that? A. I did not go 
there on that subject at all. 

Q. Didn't you testify before that Committee and at a great 
length as to the manner in which the American Bank I^ote Com- 
pany and the Stock Exchange had damaged and agreed to — .A. 
Yes, but that is another subject. 

Q. What is that? A. That is another subject, that is what I 
did. 

Q. Another subject from what? A. Erom the incorporation 
of the Stock Exchange. 

Q. Did you testify before a joint committee of the two houses 
here that you did so testify there, and that they told you to 
come back to your own state ; did you testify to that ? A. That 
is another piece of your information. I read the report signed 
by the Pujo Committee, that part of it, and I have got it, I 
think the paper is in court. 

Q. I don't care anything about that? A. The part I read is 
downstairs. Will you have what I read downstairs? 

Q. 'No. A. You won't? Proceed. 

Q. That you read then from the report ? A. Erom the report 
signed by the Pujo Committee, yes. 

Q. Did you also state before this Committee what you stated or 
what you claim to have stated before the Pujo Committee? A. 
You mean the Committee on Codes? 

Q. The Joint Committee or the Committee on Codes ? A. Not 
the 26th, you mean the Committee on Codes. 

Q. Either one of them? A. • That is two entirely different 
subjects. The one was the Governor's bill ; the other is my bill. 



109 

Q. Which is the Governor's bill ? A. The bill to incorporate 
the Stock Exchange. 

Q. Which is yours? A. The bill intended to stop the Stock 
Exchange from discriminating against eleven other different 
companies than my own, and mine besides. Twelve companies, 
scattered through the United States from San Francisco to 
Boston. 

Q. So you were not interested in the Governor's bill? A. I 
was. 

Q. To what extent? A. To the extent that Senator Stilwell 
suggested — . 

Q. ISo, not' about Senator Stilwell, to what extent were you 
interested? A. I think I have a right to answer that question 
in that way; I cannot" answer it otherwise. 

Q. I object to your saying anything about Senator Stilwell. 
A. Then I will have to await the Committee's ruling. 

Q. Were you interested in the bills pending before — upon 
which a hearing was granted, and upon which you spoke at great 
length, known as the eleven Stock Exchange bills, or that in sub- 
stance ? A. I do not know my rights here, but whether I am 
right or not, I request that — 

Mr. Lyon. — I have no objection to it at all, except, as I said 
before, that it is going far afield. 

The Chairman. — The Committee agrees w^ith you on that 
proposition. It is not testimony material to the testimony here. 

Mr. Wilson. — As to whether he testified before this Commit- 
tee here. 

The Chairman. — This Committee for the Stock Exchange and 
Incorporation bills ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Yes. 

The Chairman. — ^o, we do not think it is. There was no 
testimony. On Febrnary 26th there w^as a joint hearing of the 
Judiciary and Codes Committees of the Senate and Assembly in 
the Senate Chamber. 

Mr. Wilson. — Perhaps I am unfortunate in saying testimony 
inslead of a speech. I am referring to the argnmeiit or statements 
that he made before the Committee, and which relate entirely to 
a letter that is in question here, and which he says had nothing 
to do with it; Senator Stilwell's explanation of certain phrases 



110 



that are contained in telegrams and in letters are directly con- 
nected with that. 

The Chairman. — If they will be connected that is competent. 

Mr. Wilson. — Yes, sir, but waiving that for the present, I will 
come nearer home. 

Q. When did yon hrst meet Senator Stilwell ? A. February 
15th, 190.7. 

Q. Who is the Senator from the District in which you live ? 
A. I don't know. 

Q. How is that ^ A. I don't know. 

Q. Had you ever inquired ? A. I do not thuik I have ever 
inquired. 

Q. And you have lived here all your life, practically? A. Ko, 
sir ; I only live there a few months in Avinter. 

Q. Your home, you told me, is on Long Islands A. Xo, I 
did not. 

Q. Well, where? A. On Staten Island. 

Q. Staten Island ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You don't know who your Senator is over there ? A. On 
Staten Island ? 

Q. Yes. A. Is it Griffin? 

Q. I don't know. I am as ignorant as you are. A. I don't 
know, sir. 

Q. How came you to go to Senator Stilwell ? A. Only because 
the Governor sent me to him. 

Q. That was your only reason ? A. I never heard of him 
before. 

Q. Had aiiybody ever reconunended you to him ? A. To Sen- 
ator Stilwell f 

Q. Yes. A. The Governor. I never heard Mr. Stilwell's 
name that I know of until the Governor mentioned it. 

Q. Then you came here, knowing no Senator, is that right ? 
A. Absolutely. 

Q. "No Assemblyman ? A. Yes, I know Assemblyman Xorton. 

Q. Where does he live? A. 103 Waverly Place'. 

Q. He is Assemblyman from your District? A. He is; he 
owns the hotel I live in and have lived in for eight- — 

Q. What did yon come here for ? A. In pursuance of .some 
letters I wrote the Governor, and for the purpose of relating the 
steel enoi'avino; situation to him, and of obtaining: relief if he 
could give it to me, and was willing to. 



Ill 

Q. Have you those letters here, or copies of them ? A. Abso- 
lutely, three of them, sir, right here. Do you wish them? 

Q. ^o, not now. And did he request you to come here? A. 
I came in response to an appointment. He did not request me. 
1 had written him these letters requesting an interview with the 
Governor. I'he}' are here ; they speak for themselves if you want 
them. 

(}. Was that after the bills had been introduced to incorporate 
the Stock Exchange? A. You say that was after? 

Q. I say, did you write to him, after these bills were intro- 
duced in the Senate or in the Assembly ? A. Oh, I wrote him 
]>efore. I wrote him — 

Q. Did you write him after ( A. I must be allowed to answer. 
J don't want to be choked oft' in the middle of an answer, and I 
don't want to l)e interrupted like that. 

Q. You are not excitable, are you ? A. There are some things 
that may excite me. I wrote him in January and in February. 
There are. three letters, I remember, sir. 

Q. Did you write him in reference to incorporating the Stock 
Exchange? A. Xever. That is not my business. 

Q. You did not write to him concerning them at all ? A. Iso 
sir, not that I recollect. Xo, no. ^o, sir, I do not think so. The 
letters are here. 

Q. Had you considered that question, or was it considered 
when you were on the stand before the Pujo Committee of the 
Incorporation of the Stock Exchange ? A. I think we told him 
of the difficulty we had had in making service upon the Stock 
Exchange, we had to serve 1,100 members. First they said it 
was no good if you served the Stock Exchange as a corporation by 
its officers. Then we served eleven hundred members, and then 
they went to Court and had that service declared useless, and 
then the final and present status of it is that we served those — 
Ave can make service on the Exchange by serving the papers on 
the President of the Exchange; that is the present status. 

Q. 'Nov.% then, is it not a fact that you were A^ery much inter- 
ested in legislation that Avas designed to incorporate the Stock 
Exchange ? A. Xo. That is of no consequence to us. We 
Avould haA^e no grieA^ance against the Exchange if we were allowed 
to do business. 

Q. Then, so far as that particular bill Avent, you cared noth- 
ing about it ? A. It was only — 

Q. 'No, just ansAver that. A. Just read it. 



112 

The stenograplier thereupon repeated the question as follows: 

'' Q. Then, so far as that particular bill went you cared noth- 
ing about it?" A. Until after Senator Stilwell asked me to 
speak here on the 26th. 

Q. Then it was solely at the request of Senator Stilwell that 
you appeared before the joint committee and asked to be heard 
on that bill ? A. 'No. He told me to write him a letter, and I 
did write it. It is here in evidence. 

Q. I asked you if it was at the request of Senator Stilwell? 
A. He said, when I had spoken before Codes and was interested 
in the Stock Exchange bill, .would I appear and speak. 

Mr. Wilson. — I did not ask you that. I submit he oudit to 
answer. 

The Chairman. — The stenographer will read the record. 

The stenographer thereupon read the record as follows: 

" Q. Then it was solely at the request of Senator Stilwell that 
you appeared before the Joint Committee and asked to be heard 
on that bill? A. IsTo, he told me to write him a letter, and I did 
write it. It is here in evidence. 

" Q. I ask you if it was at the request of Senator 'Stilwell ? A. 
He said when I had spoken before Codes, was I interested in the 
Stock Exchange bill, and would I appear and speak." 

Q. Then the day after — A. The day after wliat ? 

Q. Just get my question. Then the day after Senator Stilwell 
asked you if you would not appear and speak before that Com- 
mittee, you wrote him this Exhibit 1 ? A. Yes. 

Q. Which is the letter that says: " I wish to be heard in favor 
of the bill requiring the New York Stock Exchange to incorpo- 
rate at the hearing of February 26th, and formally apply to be 
put on the list of speakers. If this application is not properly 
£iddressed to you, will you kindly inform me to whom I should 
wiite." A. Yes. 

Q. How came you to write that sort of letter, if Stilwell had 
requested you especially to appear ? A. The letter may not have 
been written as you v/ould write it, sir, but he suggested I write 
a letter so he could have the thing before him. 

Q. Then it was to aid Stilwell in putting through the Stock 
Exchange bill that you came here and spoke before these Com- 
mittees, and not to aid yourself ? A. I^ow, if joii put that state- 



113 

nient iu my niouth, vou liad better take the sta]id. The exact 
opposite of that is true. 

The Chairman. — Just answer the question of counsel If you 
can ansAver it, answer it. 

The stenographer thereujDon repeated the question as follows: 

" Q. Then it was to aid Stilwell in putting through the Stock 
Exchange bill that you came here and spoke before those Com- 
mittees, and not to aid yourself?" A. I^o, sir. I came here 
only for tlie purpose of aiding myself, and the incorporation bill 
is a mere incident of that. 

Q. Then why didn't you stay to home on the day that hearing 
was had? A. The 26th? 

Q. Yes, if that was the day ? A. Because in a small way I 
would like to see the Stock Exchange incorporated, and Mr. Stil- 
well had asked me to come, and said that the matters that I spoke 
of before his Committee on Codes were interesting in the other 
matter. 

Q. Well, now, when did you first testify before the Joint Com- 
mittee ? 

The Chairman. — Speak, not testify. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He did not testify at all. 

Mr. Wilson.— Well, speak. 

A. The Committee on Codes, you mean \ Mr. Stilwell's Com- 
mittee ? 

Q. Xo, I mean a joiut Committee of the Whole. A. Do you 
mean the Senate and House Committee that met on the Stock 
Exchange matter \ 

Q. Yes, I so understand it. A. There is no first, because 
there is only one. That was on the 26t]i of February, this year. 

Q. Yery well. You got here at Avliat time of day ? A. About 
eleven o'clock, somewhere around there. 

Q. And were you the last one that testified? A. I v/as. 

Q. AVhen I say '' testified," of course I mean speak ? A. I 
was. 

Q. You intended to testify, didn't you, instead of arguing? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I don't think that is proper. 
Mr. Wilson. — He was not sworn, but aside from that — 



114 

A. JSTo. sir, I intended to speak. Mr. Stilwell suggested my 
speaking, never nsed the word " testify." I did not understand' 
that anything that 1 said would be taken down and used in the 
nature of evidence. It was only in the line of argument. 

Q. That is what you regard as an argument ? A. 'No, sir, I 
did not. I did not say so — 

Q. What — A. One minute. Hear me through. I object to 
your breaking in all the time when I am answering a question; 
giving facts that would tend to show that the Stock Exchange 
ought to be incorporated. 

Q. But did you not repeatedly say before the committee that 
the statements, that you were making, carried with them the 
sanctity of an oath, or that in substance, and that you were ready 
to verify any of them if the}^ needed it ? A. I never used the 
phrase — 

Q. That in substance, or intending to convey that impression? 
A. Please let me finish my answer. 

Q. Sure. A. I never used the phrase in the sanctity of an 
oath. I don't know whether I offered to verify my testimony or 
not, but if I did not, I offer now to swear to anything that I said 
there. 

Q. To all you said ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In other words, you intended it to have with the Conamittee 
all the weight of sworn testimony ? A. I cannot say, sir, that 
that reasoning passed through my mind. I can say that I be- 
lieved that I impressed them as truthful and anything — if that 
impression was lacking, they could hold me responsible to any 
extent to what I said. 

Q. You and I understand each other. When you made state- 
ments to the Committee of what you claimed to be facts within 
your own knowledge, you intended them to be the truth ? A. Oh, 
certainly. 

Q. And you made those statements the same as if you had been 
sworn before you made them ? A. Oh, certainly. 

Q. :N"ow, how long were you there before you spoke? A. I 
think I spoke from about half past 11 to half past 12, sir. 

Q. In the night ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The Committee had sat there from what time before you 
began? A. Nominally from 2.30, if my memory is right. Act- 
ually from 3 until an adjournment at some hour, say 7 to half 
past 8 and then from half past 8 to about half past 12 I think 
now. 



115 

Q. Was Senator Stilwell himself Chairman of that committee ? 
A. Oh, absolutely Chairman of the proceedings. 

Q. And he had got yon there to boost for these bills ? A. Well, 
now, one minnte. If yon want to make statements like that, why 
don't yon come np here and swear to them and take the stand ? 

The Chairman. — Just a minute, Mr. Kendall. What was the 
question ? 

The Witness. — There is no question. 

(Question read). — ^^ Q. And he had got you there to boost 
these bills ? '' 

The Witness. — If you had asked me the question I would reply 
in the negative. 

Q. You were there to lift for the bills, if that is better, at the 
request of Mr. Stilwell ? A. Why, I was there, sir, if you please 
to consider it in that light, to do anything honorable that would 
promote the improving of the condition of the 'New York Stock 
Exchange. 

Q. But you w^ere not after the E'ew York Stock Exchange? 
A. I cannot answer that question, sir. The same answer goes as 
before. 

Q. Well, did you state to that committee that you had been 
before the Pujo Committee and the committee sent you back to 
your own state; said they couldn't do anything for you? A. I 
think I read the report which relates to it. It is only a small 
paragraph, sir. The Pujo committee did make that report. 

Q. Well, you argued before this committee that the only re- 
dress that you had got for your grievances was to incorporate 
the Stock Exchange, didn't you? A. As a matter of legal pro- 
cedure, I think so. If v/e wished to litigate, that we had no 
standing whatever at the present time. 

Q. Well, you reviewed the history of the Stock Exchange and 
your troubles with them, did you not? A. ]^ot so very much as 
I reviewed the testimony of Mr. 'Sturges, who was their star 
witness and who had been 26 years, I believe, a member of the 
governing board and some 34 — 

Q. Sturges was whose star witness ? A. The Stock Exchange's. 
He has been been President of the Stock Exchange. I reviewed 
his testimony. 

Q. What was your reviewing of Sturges's evidence before this 
legislative committee here for? A. Because it showed such a 



116 

lack of any moral sentiment wliatever. Such a carelessness of 
his fellow beings that the Exchange was conducting their business 
?vithout any regard to anybody else, and that they would do such 
things as fine a firm which would swindle the public thirty days, 
and if a member split a commission, five years, and that he said 
that the splitting of a commission was the most heinous crime 
that a man could commit and that he thought the relative sen- 
tences were appropriate. 

Q. Well, finish your answer? A. That is all. 

Q. l^ow, is that all i A. That is my answer entirely, sir. That 
is all. 

Q. I will get through with this subject very quickly now before 
the committee. Begin at the question of rights, as to whether the 
opponents of the bill or those who were for it should speak first. 
A. There were quite — there were some deliberations. I re- 
member that, sir. Senator Stilwell knows that part of it better 
than I do. 

Q. Did you request that the opponents of the l)ill should speak 
first ? A. Iso, sir. 

Q. Are you sure? A. AVhy, certainly. 

Q. And you didn't say anything on that subject? A. 'Not at 
all. You have another case of misinformation. Something like 
that occurred on the Committee of Codes, but not at all before — 
■ Q. N'ot before the Joint Committee? A. AYhere it was the 
proper thing for them to speak first, the opposition to the bill, 
but nothing to what you are talking about now ; nothing occurred 
in any manner or shape. I never made any such request. I was 
the merest passenger at the hearing and appeared there only, as 
I thought, as a very minor witness. 

Q. I might have got twisted about the two investigations? A. 
Yes. 

Q. I apologize to you again. A. I accept your apologies. 

Q. Who spoke before you ? A. Everv])ody. I was the last. 

Q. They saved you for the last? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who spoke against the bill ? A. Principally Mr. Milburn, 
Mr. Taylor his associate ; ]\lr. Van Antwerp. 

Q. Charles A. Cohen? A. Charles A. Cohen; about 15 or 20 
men. Some men I never — 

Q. Franklin Leonard ? A. Yes, I think so. 

Q. And Morris L. Muhlemami ? A. Yes, Muhlemann, that is 
right. 



117 

Q. And Howard E. White, V\^illiam C. Van Antwerp, Hon. 
Charles A. Towne \ A. There you are wrong. Mr. Towne did 
not speak in opposition to the hilL ]\lr. Towne spoke for the bilL 

Q. Towne spoke for the bill \ A. Yes. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I would like to know the signifi- 
cance of this. I think this is far away. 

Mr. AVilson. — I will get close now. 

The Chairniai:!. — Would you pick out some specific thing you 
are trying to get at. I think it is absolutely irrelevant. 

Mr. Wilson. — Yes. 

The Chairman.— You know that this is under the objection 
of coimsel that this is allowed. 

Q. At what length did you speak? K.. Including the interrup- 
tious I think about an hour. I may be mistaken. 

Q. And you got through about what time ? A. I think about 
half past 12. 

Q. That night \ A. That night, yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember a Mr. Milburn or Mr. Taylor saying 
anything? A. I do. 

Q. Which one was it ? A. Both. 

Q. About you ? A. I don't. I am yery sure. Mr. Milburn. 
I neyer mentioned. 

Q. Well, Mr. Milburn or Mr. Taylor — neither one of those 
spoke before the Codes Committee? A. ^N'ot the Mr. Milburn 
who spoke before. 

Q. AVell, one of them — A. One moment. You must let me 
answer. I object to being broken in on. I would like the stenog- 
rapher to read that question. 

(Question read.) 

The Witness. — Is that the question ? 

Q. Yes. A. Xo, sir, a ^Mr. Milburn who is the son of the Mr. 
Milburn who spoke before the committee here appeared before the 
Codes Committee but declined to make a speech. 

Q. Well, now, did Mr. Taylor or ]\[r. Milburn stay during 
your speech? A. Mr. Taylor did only. Mr. Milburn had de- 
parted for Xew York. 



118 

Q. Did they make any comments on your personal cliaracter or 
record ? 

Mr. Lyon. — I object to it. 

Q. With reference to the 'Stock Exchange ? 

Mr. Lyon. — I object to it as incompetent irrelevant and im- 
material. 

Mr. Wilson. — I may as well state to the committee, so you 
will understand, that he has said in a letter here and in many 
interviews that there was never any talk between Senator Stil- 
.well and himself about a brief. I want to show briefly that Mr. 
Taylor or Mr. Milburn asked the privilege, if he should utter 
Any slanders or statements concerning them that were libelous, 
that they should be permitted to reply in an additional brief; 
that that privilege vv^as granted to them; that they did reply in a 
brief which we have here ; that Mr. Stilwell took that brief to him 
and showed it to him or gave it to him, and that that was what 
the conversation related to ; and he says he don't know which 
one of them stayed, there is no brief and Mr. Stilwell will swear 
to that, if I am correctly informed, that w^hen he handed it to 
him and looked it over, he said this is no brief. This is not a 
brief at all. 

The Chairman. — Proceed. 

Mr. Lyon. — I do not think that this question has anything 
to do with this case. 

The Chairman. — How does that go to this question ? 

Mr. Wilson. — I have the brief in my hand. He says there 
was none and there was no talk about one. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — You have not asked him 
whether there was any talk about one or not. 

Mr. Lyon. — There was no talk about a brief. 

Mr. Wilson — You have asked him and he has sworn there 
wasn't any, and by inference that the reference in the Senator's 
communication to him concerning the brief was simply a signal 
for bribery and that they got busy immediately. 



119 

Mr. Lyon. — That is uot the point I am asking about at all. 
The question is whether at that hearing they made any imputa- 
tions against Mr. KendalFs character. 

The Chairman. — I think he can answer that yes or no. 

The Witness. — You mean this hearing of the 26th ? 

Q. Proceed. 

The AVitness. — Have I a question before me ? 

The Chairman. — Yes. 

The Witness. — At what time — at what time are you speak- 
ing of ? 

Q. I am asking you now before the Joint Committee ? A. Did 
they make any aspersions on my character ? 
Q. Yes ? A. I think they did^ sir. 
Q. What did they say? 

Mr. Lyon. — That is objected to as immaterial. I do not think 
w^hat they thought about Mr. Kendall has anything to do with 
this or is connected with it. 

Mr. Wilson. — I don't care about it. You recalled what they, 
said ? A. Thev said if I made anv damaffina: statements about 
them they would like to put in a brief, just as you say Mr. Stil- 
weli said. 

Q. You admit that is so ? A. That they said that ? 

Q. Yes. A. Yes. There was considerable excitement over 
this. 1 vrill say what they said. They said if I made any damag- 
ing statements al)out them that they wanted to be allowed to put 
in a brief on it, that is right. 

Q. Is this your e\'idence contained in this transcript on page 
239 to page 277 inclusive — 

A. What of? Before the Joint Committee? 

Q. The hearing before the Joint Committee, yes. A. I do not 
know. 

Q. Will you look at it and see. 

]\Ir. Lyon. — I think the counsel should correct the question 
and not call the testimony evidence when it is only argument. 



.121) 



The Cliairman. — That is so. There is no sworn testimony 
taken except witness went before the connnittee and made an 
argument — Mr. Kendall made an argument the same as the 
other gentlemen that appeared before the joint hearing that night. 

Mr. Wilson. — He has just sworn now we may refer to it as 
being sworn to. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — " That doesn't make it so.'' 

Mr. Wilson. — Well, I don't care anvthinp' about it. 

The Witness. — Thei'e is an hour's reading for me to find out. 

Mr. Wilson. — May it be conceded that is the statement made 
before the Joint Committee 'i Do you want me to call I 

Mr. Lyon. — I don't want to concede it unless he has read it. 

Q. Have you ever read over the testimony you gave before that 
committee ? A. Xever. I mav help vou bv savins that anv of 
the Senators, many of these gentlemen were present there and 
almost anything you say they know the truth of, so go ahead. 

Mr. Wilson. — Then I offer upon this hearing all statements as 
contained in the transcript of the minutes before that conmiittee 
of what he said at that time ? 

The Witness.— I haven't the slightest objection. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It seems to me if the Committee 
please, it might be admitted as a transcript of the evidence sub- 
ject to his correction after he reads it, provided it has a material 
bearing, over our objection that it is immaterial, as no part in 
cross-examination, is not cross-examination and it is not in any 
way connected with the subject that is being investigated here. 

The Chairman. — The minutes of what took place there that 
night on that hearing on the incorporation bill and the other bills 
before the Joint Committee were taken before the stenographers 
and I assume — I do not know that they are official records. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The difficulty in having testi- 
mony introduced in bulk over our objection is that it may be used 
for some purpose not at present apparent. I suggest that it be 
left out entirelv. 



121 



Mr. Wilson. — Perhaps we can agree on this. This is a trans- 
cript or pnrports to be of proceedings had before the Joint Coni- 
niitteo on the 2()th of Febrnarv in 1913, and that either of ns 
may use such portions of that, subject to correction, as may seem 
to be material upon the close of this case. 

The Chairman. — Is that satisfactory ? 

]Mr. Lyon. — The difficulty of that is miless it all goes into the 
minutes, if we should ever get to where we had to sum \\j), how 
can we know what ooes in. I haven't the slightest idea of what 
goes in. 

The Chairman. — When you come to particular parts you can 
indicate them. You don't want the whole of that. 

]\Ir. Wilson. — Certainly not. Mr. Lyon, is it printed? 

The Chairman. — Typewritten. So, when a particular part 
is to go in the record, you people can agree upon that as a trans- 
cript of the minutes of the hearing taken before the Senate — 

Mr. Lyon. — And ultimately only that part that goes in the 
record will be considered evidence here. 

The Chairman. — Yes. 

Mr. AVilson. — AVe are glad to make that arrangement. Before 
^Ye close before the Committee Ave Vvdll indicate such portions of 
this transcript as we want read into the record, and tliey may 
do the same if that will be satisfactory. 

The Witness. — ]\lay 1 have a copy of the transcript? 

The Chairman. — You may see that. 

Q. Then you appeared again before the Committee on Codes, 
Avhen? A. 1 think it is the 19th. 

The Witness. — March. It is an awful strain the vast num- 
ber of dates put on me and I have never made a memorandmn 
and have none. 

Mr. Wilson. — I ask that this be marked Exhibit 2 for Identi- 
jfication. 

Marked Defendant's Exhibit 2 for Identification. 



122 

Mr. Wilson. — This Exhibit 2 for Identification purports to 
be the hearing before the Senate Committee on Cooler on Senate 
Bill 1188, entitled An act to amend the Penal Law in relation 
to listing or trading in securities, held on March 19, 1913, at 2 
o'clock. This purports to be the proceedings upon that hearing; 
and may it be conceded that this is a transcript of the official 
stenographer for that Committee ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It will be, if it is. I do not 
know. I suppose the Committee will know. 

The Chairman. — This is the Codes Committee. This was not 
a transcript of the Joint Committee ? 

Mr. Wilson.— 'No. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — If it is imported you had better 
prove it. 

Q. Did you have a copy of the stenographer's minutes of the 
hearing before the Codes Committee on your bill? A. Yes, sir. 
One minute. I think so. AVait a minute till I answer that, 
Yes, sir. You mean the Committee on Codes ? 

Q. On Codes, yes. A. What I said in favor of my Inli. after 
the bill had been made ? 

Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir. I had a copy of it. 

Q. Look this over (handing to witness) and see if this is the 
transcript of the same evidence ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Are you asking about his testi- 
mony now, or about the entire report ? 

Mr. Wilson. — I am asking about the transcript of tlie pro- 
ceedings. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I suggest that it be admitted as 
a portion of the transaction of the testimony, if there is any 
portion of it that is important. 

Mr. Lyon. — Subject to the same provision that none of it be 
considered in evidence unless it is read in. 

The Chairman. — Is that satisfactory? 

Mr. Wilson. — That is satisfactorv, as far as that 2:oes. but I 



123 

also want a concession that it is a correct transcript of what 
occurred before the Committee. 

Mr. Lyon. — AVe do not concede that. 

Mr. Wilson. — That it is a transcript of the whole record. 
Otherwise, I shall have to ask him if certain things occurred 
there. 

The Chairman. — That is Avhat they want. 

Q. How many copies of this transcript did you obtain ? A. 
One has been sent me, sir. 

Q. How many did you obtain in all? A. Only one. 

Q. One is all you had? A. One is all I have seen. 

Q. 'Now, you appeared at the commencement of the hearing, 
did you not ? A. Yes. 

Q. And that occurred on March 19, 1913 ? A. I think that 
is right, sir. 

Q. How many members of the committee were present, if you 
remember ? A. I think eight, sir, if I remember. I won't b© 
sure. I think that gentleman sitting at the other end of the table 
came in afterwards and perhaps made the ninth, or he was there. 
I think there were nine people. 

Q. How many members of the Senate Codes Committee were 
there? A. I am informed eight, sir. 

Q. When did you first learn that? A. I think in February, 
sir. 

How many of the Assembly Judiciary Committee ? A. I 
haven't the slightest idea. Oh, the iVssembly Judiciary ^ — the 
Assembly ? 

Q. Yes. A. I don't know, except that Senator Stilwell wrote 
me a letter the other day, saying there were thirteen instead of 
fifteen. 

Q. That is the first you knew of how many there was, was it 
not? A. Yes, sir. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is the Codes Committee, 
don't get mixed up. 

The Witness. — Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. — ^ow^, let us see. Perhaps you don't know. 



124 



Attorney-General Carniody. — I do know. 

Q. 1^'Ow once more, how many members of tlie Assembly Codes 
Committee were there '( A. 1 don't know, sir. 1 have this 
gentleman's information. 

Q. What did he tell you 'i A. One minute. It may be ac- 
curate, it may be not, and then after I got through speaking before 
his Committee that same day, the 19th, they asked me to come 
around and 'speak before them, and I went around there and spoke 
perhaps ten to fifteen minutes, fifteen to twenty minutes, at a long 
table, a number of chairs, but I didn't count the number and the 
chairs were not nearly filled. 

Q, Where Avas that i A. Around here somewhere. 

Q. Then all you know as to how" many members there were of 
the Assembly Codes Committee is what Mr. Stilwell told you — 
Senator Stilwell ? A. What he wrote me, sir. 

Q. That is all you knoAv '( A. That is all. 

Q. Had you ever inquired i A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you care '( A. Xot particularly, no, sir. 

Q. Did you think it was important to know how many of them 
vou had ffot to have to £>'et a bill out of that Committee 'i A. No, 

too J 

sir. 

Q. You recall the telegram that he sent you ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you recall the letter that he sent you, explaining the 
telegram ? A. Yes, sir, pretending to explain it. 

Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now I ask you, as a matter of fact, if you knew down to 
that time — down to the 26th day or the 27th day of March — 
did you know how many members there Avere of the Assembly 
Committee, the Codes Committee ? A. I never knew, sir. I 
don't know now. 

Q. Then that answers ? A. One moment. Lefc me finish my 
answer. 

Q. You have finished it. You said you didn't. You had no 
information about it except what Senator Stilwell imparted to 
you? A. That w^as just what I wanted to say and you wouldn't 
let me. 

Q. Well, you may. A. Thank you, sir. 

Q. Now, let's see if you can say it ? A. Thank you very much. 
If I had ever known, I had forgotten. I only know what Senator 
Stilwell Avrote me in explanation of a certain telegram. 



125 

Q. jSTow, did jou know how many there were of the Assembly 
Judiciary Committee ? A. I don't know now. I never knew. 

Q. Did you ever inquire ? A. JSTever. You mean the Senate 
Judiciary '( 

Q. Yes. A. Xo, neither one. 

Q. Xor the Assembly ? A. The Assembly Judiciary ? 

(). Yes. A. I don't know now. 

Q. Do you kno^^' now, or did you ever know, how many members 
there were of the joint committee ? A. I never heard and don't 
know now. 

Q. Well, did you ever know how many different commiittees 
there vvcre that made up the joint committee ( A. Yes, sir, I think 
Senator Stilwell told me that there were two, one from the House 
and one from the Senate ? 

Q. Well, there were four, weren't there ? A. Four what ? 

Q. Four committees that make up the joint committee? A. I 
don't think so, sir. 

Q. Senate Committee on Codes and the Assembly Committee on 
Codes, Senate Committee on Judiciary and Assembly Committee 
on Judiciary ( A. I have never seen that paper, sir. I might 
have observed that information. 

Q. Xever saw the paper ? You were before them and talked, 
you say, all night ? A. I didn't say so. You take the stand, in- 
stead of putting statements in my mouth, then you may get some 
testimony that stilts you. 

Q. You talked till twelve o'clock at night ? A. I think half 
past twelve. 

Q. Talked till morning, and you never, notwithstanding your bill 
before the Assembly Codes Committee and before the Senate, you 
took no means to inform yourself as to liow^ many members there 
were of the Assembly Committee, nor who they were ? A. I did 
not. I thouglit that the Governor sending me to Mr. Stilwell was 
enough. 

Q. That that would settle it, and you never inquired or in- 
formed yourself as to how many members there were of the Senate 
Codes Committee ? A. As I appeared before them two or three 
times, I knov/ the number is eight. 

Q. You assumed that the Governor had sent you to Stilwell, 
and Stilwell being the Chairman of the Senate Codes Committee, 
that he could do anything he was a mind to with the Assembly or 
the Senate ? A. Xo, sir, I did not so assume. 



126 

Q. Wliy did you not inquire then^ how many there were on the 
Assembly Codes Committee? A. It did not cross my mind to, 
sir. 

Q. Do you think it would have been strange if in answer to your 
inquiry as to the number of members of that Committee, some^ 
one had made a mistake as to the number ? 

Mr. Lyon. — I object to that as immaterial. 

A. It is a hypothetical question. Won't you please read it to 
me? 

The Chairman.— Yes, that is a sort of conclusion. 

Q. Then try it this way. You received a telegram from Sen- 
ator Stilwell, saying ^' The number is fifteen." Did you receive 
such a telegram ? A. Was it the number, or the " correct num- 
ber ?" 

Q. '' The correct number is fifteen." Did you receive such a 
telegram? A. I did, sir. 

Q. Did you receive a letter dated the next day, and postmarked 
the next day, saying that he had made a mistake, and that the 
number was thirteen, and giving you their names ? A. I did not. 

Q. You did not get such a letter? A. That is not your ques- 
tion, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. — Just read it and see. 

Question read: 

" Q. Did you receive a letter, dated the next day, and post- 
marked the next day, saying that he had made a mistake, and 
that the number was thirteen and giving your their names ?" A. 
I didn't get such a letter as that, no. 

Mr. Wilson (addressing counsel). — ^ Will you let me take 
the letter, please? 

Senator Brown. — Weren't the letter and telegram established 
here ? 

Mr. Wilson. — They ought to be. 

Q. The telegram purports to be dated the 25th? A. Yes. 



127 

Q. And the letter is mailed the 27th? A. And dated the 2Tth. 

Q. Yes. A. xill right, ^ow, have yonr question read to 7011 
and Yon will see where yon are again off. 

Q. Very well. You asked for and received a letter the next 
day ? A. From that telegram, how could I ? 

Q. I ask you if you received a letter, dated the next day after 
you received the telegram ? A. I beg your pardon. It was not 
dated tlie next day. 

Q. It was dated the second day afterwards ? A. That is 
different. 

Q. Very well. That settles that. ^^Tow, going back to March 
19th, that was the day you appeared before the Codes Committee. 
Is that right ? A. I think so, sir. 

Q. You asked that the opposition should be heard first ? A. I 
did. 

Q. That was upon the bill that you claim as your bill ? A. I 
don't make any claims or descriptions of it at all, sir. You may 
speak of it as my bill. 

Q. What was the number of the bill ? A. Senate bill 1188. 

Q. You were asked if you wanted to be heard ? A. I hear you 
say so, sir. 

Q. Well, is that true ? A. Yes, sir, I think it is ti*ue. 

Q. Did you then say, '' The occasion demands that the opposi- 
tion speak first ? " A. Xo sir. I said that the " etiquette de- 
mands the oj)position speaks first." 

Q. The stenographer got you wrong then. It says the oc- 
casion ? A. The stenographer was wrong. 

Q. AVell, it was a case of etiquette rather than occasion ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — What date is that? 
Mr. Wilson.— This is March 19th. 

Q. Xow, did you say ^'And I raise the point of fairness. The 
gentlemen of this Committee will remember that the last time 
that I had the honor of speaking before them in the Senate Cham- 
ber, that my side of the case came up. Senator Stilwell : We can 
go on. Go right along, Mr. Kendall. We will hear both sides. '^ 
Did that occur ? A. It did, sir. 

Q. ''Mr. Kendall: And I asked if the other side had been 
heard, presuming they took one hour or an hour and a half. 



128 

^Senator Stilwell: We are going to limit this thing to an hour. 
Mr. Kendall : That I should be heard a second time — that I 
should be heard an equal length of time/' A. AVrong transcript 
in the word '^ second." Otherwise all you have read is correct. 

Q. So you say the stenographer is wrong this time ? A. The 
second — may I see that a minute. Just one word there, merely. 
Substantially correct. That is a mistake of the stenographer, 
equal length of time. Otherwise every Avord you have spoken, 
sir, I remember as absolutely correct. 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. What is it that you correct ? A. I merely asked to be 
heard an equal length of time after the speaker was through. 
Q. How is the transcript 'i 

Mr. AVilson. — The transcript is "Mr. Kendall: I ask that 
after the otlier side had been heard, presuming they take an hour 
or an hour and a half, that I should be heard a second time — 
that I should be heard an equal length of time." 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is the transcript ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Yes. 

Q. What correction do jon make? A. Only leave out that I 
should be heard a second time. That I should be heard an equal 
length of time after the first speaker. 

By Mr. Wilson : 

0. Well, what happened then? A. My memory is not equal 
to having the transcript before me, sir. 

Q. Then, " Senator Stilwell. — Vfell, the opposition first. We 
v/i]] always take the opposition first. Is there any opposition?" 
A. Tliat is correct. 

Q. And then did this occur: ''Mr. J. C. Milburn, Jr., rep- 
rcsentino- 'Nev/ York Stock Exchange: Mr. Chairman and 
(gentlemen: I am not going to make any oral argument on this 
matter at all. It was very thoroughly threshed out and argued 
out the last time, but I have brought a brief on the matter which 
I v70T^ld like to leave with the Committee." Is that correct? A. 
I think that occurred, sir. 



129 

Q. 'Now, were joii furnished with a copy of that brief, state- 
ment by the Xew York Stock Exchange of its opposition with 
reference to the engraving of securities (handing document to 
witness) ? A. I had one in my possession when I came into that 
room. I don't know whether I was furnished with it. This is 
a duplicate of the news article, word for word, the whole length 
of it. I have compared it myself. 

Mr. Wilson. — I will have this marked. 

Said document was marked Defendant's Exhibit 3 for identifi- 
cation. 

The Chairman. — Would you just as soon adjourn now. 

Mr. Wilson. — If I can just finish this one sentence more. 

Q. Did this contain this statement: "This is not the place 
for a discussion of particular instances of the work done by that 
company in recent years, or of the question whether any of its 
work of proper precaution against forgery and misuse of plates 
Vvere observed. As to the character of the amendment, it is sufii- 
cient to say that its president, George H. Kendall, has in the 
signs displayed by him upon the building of the Bank Note Com- 
pany, in statements made to the public press before the Pujo 
Committee in Washington and before Legislative Committees in 
Albany, and in his sworn complaint in the suit brought by his 
C^ompany against the Exchange in the United States Court 
sliown a reckless disregard for truth, and a readiness to resort to 
libel and slander that wholly discredit the character of his com- 
pany's management." 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I object to this testimony, and 
ask that all that refers to Mr. Kendall be stricken out as imma- 
terial and improper. It is not susceptible to contradiction here. 
It is not a part of this cross-examination, and is taking an ad- 
vantage of ^Ir. Kendall that he cannot in any way on this exam- 
ination or this hearing meet or reply to. 

Mr. Lyon. — Furthermore, it is not testimony. It is a lawyer's 
argument. 

Mr. Wilson. — Xo. I will convince you gentlemen that T am 
acting in good faith, and not with the ol:>ject in view of getting 
some statement on the record. 



130 

Attornej-Geiieral Carmody. — I^o ; but the statement you are 
reading is a lawyer's statement. It is not evidence. 

]\Ir. Wilson. — Certainly not. 

xittorney-General Carmody. — It should not oet into this record 
as evidence. 

Mr. AVilson. — If you will alk:>w me a single moment, 1 will put 
this evidence in competently. I am putting in this evidence in 
contradiction of wdiat this man says that certain letters and tele- 
grams going to show the good faith of Senator Stilwell in writing 
to him and sending for him — I will follow this up by saying 
this was handed to him; that he replied to it. Then Taylor, when 
he went aw^ay said, '' If this man utters any further falsehoods 
and slanders before this Committee, we want the pri\'ilege of 
filing a reply brief to it, and he filed one, Avhich Senator Stilwell 
furnished to this man, and Avhich is the brief furnished which he 
says meant bribery and extortion. I am not saying this is true ; 
I am simply saying it is what occurred before this Committee. 
It is a matter of record and to which this man replied at great 
length. 

The Chairman. — Well, it is in now, as far as the effect of it is 
concerned. But I want to say that if it is not connected up, it 
will be stricken from the record that goes before the Senate. I 
just want to ask on behalf of the Committee the following ques- 
tion of Mr. Kendall. Did you ever have any conversation, nego- 
tiations or communications whatever with any member of the 
Senate or Assembly Codes Committee, except what you have testi- 
fied to regarding Senator Stilwell personally ? In other words, 
did you ever have any communication with any mendjer of the 
Codes Committee of the ^Senate or Assembly except Senator Stil- 
well ? A. Absolutely never. 

Q. Do you recollect any act, statement or conversation of any 
other member of the Senate or the Assembly Codes Committee, 
which gave you the slightest idea or conviction or impression that 
any other member of the Senate or Assembly Codes Committee 
knew of any of the transactions or conversations that you have 
testified you had with 'Senator Stilwell ? A. I thoroughly be- 
lieve that Senator Stilwell lied. That he could not deliver — 

Q. Do you know? 



131 

Mr. Wilson. — We ask that that be stricken from the record. 

Senator Bhiuvelt. — Strike it out. 

The Witness. — Will you read that question again ? 

(Question read.) 

'' Q. Uo YOU recollect any act, statement or conversation of any 
other member of the Senate or the Assembly Codes Committee 
which gave you the slightest idea or conviction or impression 
that any other member of the Senate or Assembly Codes Com- 
mittee, knew of any of the transactions or conversations that you 
have testified you had Avitli Senator Stilwell? A. Absolutely 
no. I don't believe they did. 

By Mr. Wilson : 

Q. Then why did you swear here to-day that you' telephoned 
liim you believed that there was such a community of interest 
between these members here that he could compel the Assembly's 
Committee to do whatever he should require them ( Why did 
you give that testimony ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — There was no such testimony 
given. He said he believed there w^as a comrade feeling\ 

The Chairman. — We will continue this other question. 

]\ir. Wilson. — I thought you were through. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Do you knoAv of any fact or statement, or conversation, or 
action of any member of the Senate or Assembly Codes Com- 
mittee, except what you have testified regarding Senator Stil- 
well, from which you have any impression or idea that any such 
member of the Senate or .Vssembly Codes Committee were guilty 
of any impropriety whatever in connection with your bill Xo. 
ns8. or amendments thereto, or any of the so-called Stock Ex- 
change bills ( A.I do not know of any fact or statement, or con- 
versation or action of any member of the Assembly or Assembly 
Codes Committee that would in itself, or from which I believe any 
impression — or from which I derived any idea that any such 
member of the Senate or Assembly Codes Committee were guilty 



132 



of any impropriety in connection witli my bill Iso. 1188, or 
amendments thereto, or any of the so-called Stock Exchange bills ? 

The Chairman. — The Committee will adjourn until ten 
o'clock to-morrow morning. 

Whereupon an adjournment Avas taken to Wednesday, April 
9th, 1913, at 10 o'clock a. m. 



133 



Albany, K Y., April 9, 1913. ] 

In the Matter of the Investigation by the Judiciary Committee of 
the Senate and of the State of New York, into the Charges Preferred j 

by George H. Kendall, Esq., against State Senator Stephen J. 
Stilwell. I 

The Chairman. — The Clerk will call the roll. j 

The Clerk. — Senator Murtangh. j 

Senator Miirtangh. — Here. I 

The Clerk.— Senator Blauvelt. | 

Senator Branvelt. — Here. j 

The Clerk. — Senator Brown. j 

Senator Brown. — Here. } 

The Clerk. — 'Senator Bussey. I 

Senator Bussey. — Here. . 

The Clerk. — Senator Carswell. 

'Senator Carswell. — Here. i 

The Clerk. — Senator Coats. 

Senator Coats is not present. j 

The Clerk.— Senator Foley. j 

'Senator Foley. — Here. i 

The Clerk. — Senator Griffin. j 

Senator Griffin. — Here. | 

The Clerk. — Senator McClelland. j 

Senator McClelland. — Here. j 

The Clerk.— 'Senator Pollock. | 

Senator Pollock. — Here. j 

The Clerk. — Senator Thomas. i 

Senator Thomas. — Here. j 

The Clerk. — Senator Torborg*. 
Senator Torborg. — Here. 
The Clerk.— Senator Velte. 

•Senator Yelte. — Here. ! 

The Clerk. — Senator Wagner. | 

Senator Wagner. — Here. 1 

The Clerk. — Senator Walters. , 

Senator Walters. — Here. j 

The Chairman. — The Committee will proceed with the investi- ; 

gation. ; 



134 

Attorney-General Carmodj. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen 
of the Committee : I would like to call the attention of the Com- 
mittee to an error in the testimony taken yesterday, which ap- 
pears on page 110. This is the testimony of I\lr. Kendall: '' Q. 
When did you first meet Senator Stilwell ? A. February 15, 
1907." The answer should be February 13, 1907. 

The Chairman. — There is no objection to that correction, is 
there? 

Mr. Byrne. — What is that ? I did not get it. 

Attorney-General Carmodj'. — Mr. Kendall is quoted as saying 
on page 110 : " Q. When did you first meet Senator Stilwell ? A. 
February 15th, 1907." It should be February 13th, 1907. And 
on page 131 I am quoted as saying in the record : ^' There was no 
suc-h testimony given. He said he believed there was a comrade 
feeling." I said ^' He said he believed there was a comity of 
feeling." The word '' comity " should be inserted in place of 
the word '^ comrade." That is on page 131. 

Mr. Byrne. — Are those the only corrections you have ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Those are the only ones I know 
of at the present time. 

Jli\ Byrne. — We wish to move to have a correction on page 63. 

The Chairman. — Whose testimony ? 

Mr. Byrne. — It is a letter, the letter which was sent by Senator 
Stilwell on the 21st of March. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — What is the correction ? 

The Chairman. — What page of the printed copy ? 

Mr. Byrne. — I don't know what page it is in the printed copy. 
I will let you know. It is the letter of March 21st. It is page 37 
in the printed record. We would like to have corrected the last 
sentence before '' Eespectfully yours." ^' 1 will be at my office, 
200 Broadway, Monday next, at 3 P. M., if you desire to see me 
about a brief." We desire to have '"• a " stricken out. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is correct. 

Mr. Byrne. — The address here is 200 Broadway. It should be 
261 Broadway, and the '' a " should be stricken out. 

The Chairman. — It will read now: ''I v\^ill be at my office, 



135 

261 Broadway, Monday next at 3 P. M., if you desire to see me 
about brief." 

Mr. Byrne. — That is right. 

The Chairman. — The correction is allowed. 

Mr. Byrne. — Can we have a copy of the printed minutes ? 

The Chairman. — There were only orders, I think, for printed 
copies for the Senate. We w^ill have enough of them I think. Call 
my attention to it after the hearing and I will make some arrange- 
ment about it. 

I believe it is the continuation of the cross-examination of Mr. 
Kendall that we are to take up. Mr. Kendall, will you take the 
stand, please. 

George TI. Kendall, recalled. 

Cross-examination continued. 

By Mr. Wilson: 

The Witness. — ■ Mr. Wilson, here is that report you asked me 
for yesterday v/ith the paragraph marked which you discussed 
(handing report to Mr. Wilson). 

j\[r. Wilson. — Thank you. 

Q. The paper that you hand me is the report of the Pujo Com- 
mittee ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Before whom you testified ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And it was to this paragraph in their report that you called 
the attention of the Codes Committee when you were before 
them ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, aren't you mistaken ? Wasn't it the Committee — 
the Joint Committee of the Whole to whom you called attention? 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Did I understand you that you lived in a hotel owned by 
the Assemblyman from your district ? A. I don't know what 
you understood me, sir, but that is the fact. 

Q. That was as I understood you. And that is Assemblyman 
Knott ? A. Yes, sir, I live there in winters. This is my ninth 
winter; I believe it is the eighth or ninth. 

Q. And you live in his assembly district ? A. Politically no, 
sir; I vote on Staten Island. 

Q. Well, politically you don't live in his district but physically 



136 

and actually you do ? A. Four to five montlis a year your state- 
ment is correct. 

Q. Well, do you want me to follow you all over the world to 
find out where you live ? A. I don't care a Continental what you 
do, sir. 

Q. Then I will start in. What part of the last ten years have 
you spent in Italy? A. England? 

Q. Italy. A. Italy? 

Q. Yes. A. I spent a month last year. 

Mr. Lyon. — We object to that as immaterial. Is it worth 
while in this investigation ? 

The Chairman. — ^N'o. We don't care about what the witness 
has done in Italy or in England. We want to know the truth or 
falsity of these charges. 

Mr. Wilson. — That cannot be arrived at by asking direct ques- 
tions of him I am sorry to say. 

Q. What did you go to Italy for ? 

Mr. Lyon. — That we object to. 

The Witness. — I respectfully ask the Chairman if that ques- 
tion is part of the record. 

The Chairman. Sit down, ^ow state your objection. 

Mr. Lyon. — I object to that as immaterial. 

Mr. Wilson. — I am going to ask him if he went there to be 
treated for a mental disease. We may as well have it out seeing 
you suggested it. We cannot counteract these wild statements 
by asking direct questions here. I would be glad if I could con- 
fine myself to simply asking these questions, whether they are 
true or not. 

Mr. Lyon. — If that is the purpose of it we withdraw the ob- 
jection. 

Q. What did you go to Italy for ? 

Mr. Wilson. — May I have a ruling? 

The Chairman. — Yes. Mr. Witness, make what statement you 
want to. 

The Witness. — The first words of his question, if the stenog- 
rapher will repeat them I will — 



137 

Mr. Wilson. — Well, to save controversy and rather than to be 
sidetracked by you I withdraw that question for the moment. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I ask that it be stricken out. 

The Chairman. — That is withdrawn for the present. 

Mr. Wilson. — I will withdraw that for the present and pur- 
sue the examination. 

Q. 'Now, will you answer my questions directly? A. I have 
never refused, sir. I certainly will. 

Q. Well, now, do you physically live in the Assembly district 
of Mr. Knott? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Just a moment. There is a ques- 
tion on the record ^' Did you go to Italy to be treated for a mental 
disorder ? '' 

Mr. Wlilson. — That I withdraw for the present. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The question is withdrawn ? I 
did not understand the question was withdrawn. 

Mr. Wilson. — I so stated to the Committee. 

The Chairman. — Yes, the question was withdrawn. 

Mr. Wilson. — I will state to you now however that I will re- 
peat it later on. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I don't care what you do later 
on ; it is what you are doing now. 

Mr. Lyon. — I think that should come out of the record. 

Mr. Wilson. — Yes, you may take that from the record. 

The Chairman. — Yes, strike that all out of the record. Just 
answer the question. 

The Witness. — Your Honor, I don't think that this is fair 
treatment. 

The Chairman. — Answer the question. 

The Witness. — Will the stenographer read the question? 

The stenographer read the question as follows, '^ Well now, do 
you physically live in the Assembly District of Mr. Knott " ? 

The W^itness. — At what time ? You say did I. Is that the 
question, did I ? 



138 

Q. Yes, and do you ? A. Do I ? I don't know how to answer 
that, to give the legal interpretation perhaps. I am now and have 
Been with my family — 

Mr. Wilson. — Wait a moment. 

The Witness. — residing at the hotel of Mr. Knott — 

Mr. Wilson. — Wait a moment. 

The Witness. — since November — 

Mr. Wilson. — Is there any way to stop him ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He is answering your question. 

The Chairman. — Yes, he is answering your question. 

The Witness. — • 1912. Place your own construction on it, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. — Will the stenographer repeat it so that I can get 
it? 

The answer was read by the stenographer as follows: " Do I? 
I don't know how to answer that, to give the legal interpretation 
perhaps. I am now and have been residing at the hotel of Mr. 
Knott since November, 1912. Place your own construction on it, 
sir. 

Mr. Wilson. — Well, I won't place mine on it. I want you to 
answer the question unless the Chairman excuses you. Will the 
stenographer repeat the answer ? 

The answer was read by the stenographer as follows : " Do I ? 
I don't know how to answer that, to give the legal interpretation 
perhaps. I am now and have been with my family residing at the 
hotel of Mr. Knott since November, 1912. Place your own con- 
struction on it, sir." 

The Witness. — I have answered your question as well as I know 
how. I can give no other answer. 

Q. Will you make a distinction between residing there with 
your family and living there? What distinction do you. make? 
A. None whatever, sir. 

Q. Now I ask you again, where did you live when you formu- 
lated these charges ? 

Mr. Lyon. — That is objected to as calling for a conclusion. 
Under the circumstances, if a man lives half a year in one place 
and half a year in the other — 



139 

The Cliairman. — We are wasting a lot of time on things that 
are of no importance. 

Mr. Wilson. — Of no importance excepting to ascertain whether 
I can get him to answer a question. 

The Chairman. — The witness will kindly answer as near as he 
can what counsel wants. We are wasting a lot of time. 

The Witness. — Under the decision that I have heard your 
Honor make^ that the only charges here are those signed by me, 
it seems to me that I have some standing to be heard. 

The Chairman. — This is cross examination, and counsel has a 
right to go into some matters. 

The Witness. — There is no limit to the unfairness. 

The Chairman. — We will protect you and counsel is here to 
protect you. 

Q. Then you live in Assemblyman Knott's district at the pres- 
ent time ? A. I should say so, yes sir. I told you. 

Q. Why could you not have said so on the start? A. Because 
I thought perhaps there might be in your mind some legal in- 
terpretation applicable to my ' answer, that I could not answer 
you as a conclusion — that I could state the facts and then you 
could draw the answer in whatever shape you pleased. 

Q. ]^ow we are both untwisted, I hope. 

Q. l^ow when did you first speak to Assemblyman Knott ? A. 
When what ? 

Q. When did you first speak to Assembly Knott about your so- 
called bill ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I cannot see the materiality of 
this. 

A. Three or four weeks ago. I cannot fix the date. Perhaps 
five weeks, perhaps six weeks. 

Q. Before or after you had appeared before the Codes Com- 
mittee? A. Before. Remember sir, I have appeared before the 
Codes Committee more than once. I will assist you, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. — ■ You are not assisting me any. 

The Witness. — Please proceed. 

Q. Did you speak to Assemblyman Knott before you appeared 
before the Codes Committee of the Senate? A. Yes sir, and he 
asked me to — 



140 

Q. I did not ask you about that. A. All right, sir. 

Q. Where did you first have your conversation with him ? A. 
Probably in his and my hotel, indicating the hotel that I live at. 

Q. Well, you and he then, live under the same roof \ A. We 
do, on the same floor. 

Q. And you have occupied that same building a portion of the 
year for several years ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many years ? A. I don't remember. 'Not years, but 
winters. ' 

Q. Well, I say a portion of each year for several years ? A. 
Eight or nine, I don't recollect. 

Q. Then you are well acquainted with Assemblyman Knott? 
A. Very well acquainted with him, sir. 

Q. Have you frequently discussed with him your relations to 
the Stock Exchange and its members? A. No, sir. If our 
understanding of the w^ord '^ frequently " is the same. 

Q. Well, occasionally? A. Yes, sir, I have. 

Q. Well now, how often within the last six months ? A. Oh, 
perhaps a dozen times. A dozen times at least. 

Q. Well, did AssembhTnan Knott know that you were 
anxious to secure legislation concerning the Stock Exchange ? A. 
He did. 

Q. When did you first tell him that ? A. Probably as early 
as January. 

Q. Did you ever request him to draw a bill for you? A. jSTo, 
sir. 

Q. Why not ? A. I am not competent to answer that question. 
It would take all the realm of my memory and all the surround- 
ing circumstances of why I didn't do a thing. If you will ask 
me why I did do something, perhaps I can give you a fair 
answer. 

Q. Well, if you should say it was because Knott knew you, 
would that answer it ? A. ^o, sir. 

Q. All right. Can you give me any other reason than be- 
cause you were so well acquainted with him that you did not? 
A. I have not given you any such reason, and the inference is 
not fair, sir. You are inferring something that does not exist. 

Q. Well, give me one from which I can infer what is fair? 
A. I don't think you are capable of making the inference, sir, if 
I did. 

Q. That is, you think I could not conceive why you didn't ? 



141 

The Chairman. — We will have to get to the facts a little 
quicker. 

Mr. Byrne. — I would suggest to your Honors that the witness 
be instructed to be more definite in his answers and there will be 
more facility. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I think one counsel is sufficient to 
examine the witness, and if there is going to be any instruction 
about definiteness, it should apply to counsel as well as witness. 

Mr. Wilson. — I apprehend that the Committee, composejd 
mostly of lawyers, can appreciate the difficulties of examining a 
witness who gives those kinds of answers. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Counsel is arguing with the 
witness. 

The Chairman. — Proceed. 

Mr. Vrilson. — Is it a fair question to ask him w^hy he did not 
discuss the question of drawing this bill with an assemblyman on 
the committee before whom it was, and with whom he has lived 
for eight years ? 

The Chairman. — Answer that if you can. 

The Witness. — I cannot, sir. It is all minus quantities and no 
plus. 

Q. Well, you certainly did talk with him before you wrote 
Governor Sulzer? A. I certainly did. 

Q. Xow, what advice did he give you ? A. 'None whatever that I 
recollect. 

Q. What encouragement, if any, did he give you ? A. He told me 
that the relation of the ^ew York Stock Exchange to the crushing 
out of all the bank note industries was a disgTace to the State. 

Q. When did he tell you that. A. In February, I think, sir. 

Senator Pollock. — Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a ques- 
tion. Whom did he mean by " he," the Governor, or Mr. Knott ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Assemblyman Knott. 

Q. Xow, when you came here and went before the Codes Com- 
mittee, did you consult with Assemblyman Knott? A. ISTo, sir. 

Q. He handled your bill before the Assembly Committee, did he 
not ? A. No, sir. 



142 

Q. He did not? A. He did not. 

Q. Well, does it not bear his name ? A. One bill does, sir. 

Q. Didn't the bill that passed the Assembly yesterday bear his 
name ? A. I don't know, sir. 

Q. Is it not precisely in every word the same bill that was in- 
troduced before the Senate Codes Committee ? A. That I cannot 
answer you, sir. 

Q. Do you say that you don't know. A. I say that I don't know. 

Q. If I understand you, there came a time when you under- 
stood Senator Stilwell to intimate or state to you, that while he 
did not want any money, it would take $1,500 to get the Assembly 
Codes Committee bill out ? A. Mr. Cuvillier introduced my bill, 
and I never knew of Mr. Knott's introducing it until long after- 
ward. 

Mr. Wilson. — 'Now I think I will ask the Chairman to instruct 
this gentleman to answer my question. 

The Witness. — ^AVhat is the question? 

The Chairman. — Yes. Please answer counsel's question as near 
as you can. 

Mr. Wilson. — I move to strike out his answer. 

The Chairman. — Read the question. 

The question read. 

" Q. If I understand you, there came a time when you under- 
stood Senator Stilwell to intimate or state to you that while he 
did not want any money, it would take $1,500 to get the Assembly 
Codes Committee bill out ? " A. He sent me a telegram to that 
effect. 

The Chairman. — Now get the question, witness, and answer. 

The Witness. — Read the question again. 

Question read. 

" Q. If I understand you, there came a time when you under- 
stood Senator Stilwell to intimate or state to you that while he 
did not want any money, it would take $1,600 to get the Assembly 
Codes Committee bill out ? " A. He sent me a telegram to that 
effect. 

Q. What was the language of the telegram ? A. ^^ Fifteen is 
the correct number." 



143 

Q. And you inferred from that, that " Fifteen is yonr correct 
number," that the Assembly wanted $1,500. Is that what you 
inferred ? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. Was that what you believed? A. I believed that that was 
what he told me. I don't believe that that was the fact. I think 
he wanted it entirely for his own pocket. 

Mr. Wilson. — I move to strike this answer out. 

The Chairman. — i^ot all of it. Strike the latter part of it out. 

Mr. Wilson. — I ask to have it all stricken out as irresponsive 
to my question. I must insist on this gentleman answering my 
question. 

The Chairman. — Kead the question. 

Question read. 

''And you inferred from that that '^ Fifteen is your correct 
number," that the Assembly wanted $1,500. Is that what you in- 
ferred? A. ^o, sir. 

Q. Was that what you believed ? A. I believed that was what 
he told me. I don't believe that that was the fact. I think he 
wanted it entirely for his own pocket." 

The Chairman. — I think the answer may stand. 

Mr. Wilson. — I asked him if he believed that was so, that the 
Assembly Committee wanted $1,500. Does your Honor hold 
that it is an answer? 

The Chairman. — Read that question and answer please. 

The stenographer thereupon read the question and answer as 
follows : " Q. And you inferred from that that fifteen is your cor- 
rect number, that the Assembly wanted $1,500 ; was that what 
you inferred ? A. ^o, sir. 

Q. Was that what you believed ? A. I believe that v/as what 
he told me. I do not believe that was the fact. I think he wanted 
it entirely for his own pocket." 

Mr. Wilson. — I move to strike out all of his answer excepting 
no, as irresponsive. 

The Chairman. — You asked him Avhat he believed. 

Mr. Wilson. — I asked him if he believed the Assembly Codes 



144 

Committee wanted $1^500. I did not ask him what he believed. 
I asked him if he believed that. I don't want to quibble over it 
if the Committee wants it. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out. Ask the question again. 

Q. Then you did not believe that any member of the Codes 
Committee in the Assembly wanted any money ? A. That is 
correct. 

Q. You' had seen nothing and heard nothing from any mem- 
ber of it that led you to believe that? A. You state the exact 
truth, sir. 

Q. And nothing has occurred since to induce you to believe 
that? A. Again you are stating the truth. 

Q. !N'ow then, why did you say to him that you believed there 
was such a comity of interests that he could compel the Assembly 
to report that ? A. Because — 

Mr. Lyon. — • I do not think that is a fair question. I do not 
think he said he could compel it. He could get it done perhaps. 
I do not remember quite the words, but I don't think he used 
that word '^ compel." 

Q. Do you recall what you testified yesterday that you said to 
Mr. Stilwell over the 'phone. A. Am I waiting to answer a 
previous question or is it stricken out ? 

The Chairman. — The other question is waived. 

The Witness. — May I have the last question read? 

The stenographer thereupon read the question as follows: 
^^ Q. Do you recall what you testified yesterday that you said to 
Mr. Stilwell over the 'phone ? " A. ^o, sir, unless you relate to 
some particular thing; unless you tell me what you are talking 
about. 

Q. I asked you if you recall what you testified to yesterday 
that you said to 'Senator Stilwell over the telephone with refer- 
ence to his seeing that the Assembly Committee reported your 
biU? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. ]^ow, what did you say to Senator Stilwell? A. I told 
him that I did not intend to be thrown down his way. That 
I did not intend to be balked in the matter of legislation to which 
I believed that the legislators were favorable, and that I did not 
propose to have the bill smothered in the committee. 



145 

Q. In what committee ? A. In his committee, unless I paid — 
Q. I am not asking yon — A. I am not through. 
Q. ^ever mind. I am asking you what you testified yester- 
day, Avhat you said to him with reference to your bill before the 
Assembly Codes Committee. A. I am answering that question. I 
don't think I ought to be broken up in it. 

The Chairman. — Answer the question. 

The Witness. — J^Iay I have it read ? 

The stenographer thereupon repeated the question as follows: 

^' Q. I am asking you what you testified yesterday, what you 
said to him with reference to your bill before the Assembly 
Codes Committee?" 

A. I said to him unless you report that out of your committee 
to-day I will send the following telegram to the Governor and 
every member of the Legislature. Please take a pencil and take 
down the telegram ; it is as follows — 

^It. Wilson. — I move to strike it out as not responsive. 

The Chairman. — 'No. Objection overruled. You have asked 
it. 

The Witness. — If I am broken up this way how can I tell 
you? 

The Chairman. — Go ahead. Objection overruled. Motion 
denied. 

Mr. Wilson. — I call the Committee's attention to his testi- 
mony at page 104 of the stenographer's minutes. 

The Witness. — Will you read the last where I stopped. 

The Chairman. — Eead the last couple of questions and 
answers. 

The stenographer thereupon read the testimony as follows: 
'^ Q. In what committee ? A. In his committee, unless I paid — 
Q. I am asking you — A. I am not through. Q. IsTever mind. 
I am asking you what you testified yesterday, what you said to 
him with reference to your bill before the Assembly Codes Com- 
mittee ? A. I am answering that question. I do not think I 
ought to be broken up in it. I said to him unless you report that 
out of your Committee to-day I will send the following telegram 



146 

to the Governor and every member of the Legislature. Please 
take a pencil and take down the telegram; it is as follows." 

The Witness. — I think I can continue on if I am not all broken 
up in it. The telegram is as follows : ^^ Stilwell refuses to re- 
port mj bill out of committee, my bill E'o. 1188, out of Committee, 
unless I pay him $2,000 for his Committee and $1,500 for the 
Assembly Committee on Codes. Have already paid him $250 for 
drawing bill. Have documents sustaining these assertions. What 
shall I do to get justice." Stilwell said " Wait a minute until 
I get pencil " or paper, I forget which, and I read the telegram 
over to him again with pauses between to which he said yes, yes, 
yes, and then he said " This is not fair, Mr. Kendall. You know 
I have done a good deal for you," and I said " yes." 

Mr. Wilson. — I am not asking for this. 

The Chairman. — He is giving the whole thing. Proceed. 

The Witness. — (Continuing) And I said ^^ yes, and now you 
are going to suppress my bill in Committee unless I pay you 
$2,000." He said " Give me time." I said " You are going to 
report that bill out of Committee to-day, and unless you do these 
telegrams go. What it is you wish ? " 

Mr. Wilson. — 'Now I move to strike — 

The Witness. — One moment. I am not through. And he said, 
^' Give me time and I will call you up." I said, '^ Take your time 
and think it over or call me — don't answer me now. Call me 
up in fifteen minutes and tell me your decision," and he said, '^ I 
cannot do that. Give me time and I will canvass my Committee 
and see what I can do towards getting it out to-day." 

There is probably more of the conversation, but that is all I can 
Tecollect at the moment. I have answered you, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. — Yv^ell, I submit he hasn't answered it, and I move 
to strike out his answer, and that my question be repeated. 

The Chairman. — The answer can be stricken out — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — What was the question ? 

The Chairman. — He asked him did he say anything in refer- 
ence to the Assembly Codes Committee. The witness has gone on 
telling what he said to Senator Stilwell about the Senate Codes 
Committee. 



147 

Mr. AVilson. — Will the stenographer repeat the question to him 
once more ? 

The Witness. — I have never appeared before the Assembly 
Codes Committee. I know nothing about it. 

The Chairman. — Just a moment. I will ask you this ques- 
tion. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Was there anything said in that telephone conversation be- 
tween yourself and Senator Stilwell in reference to Senator Stil- 
well getting that bill reported out of the Codes Committee ? A. 
Yes. The Assembly Codes Committee? 

Q. ^ow tell what you said ? A. This is what I said. 

Q. ^ot the Senate Codes Committee? A. Not the Senate 
Codes Committee? 

Senator McClelland. — The Assembly Codes Committee is 
what the question was. 

The Witness. — Oh, I beg your pardon. The conversation I 
relate is entirely as to the Senate Codes Committee. That con- 
versation never v/as said, as far as I remember, about the Assem- 
bly Codes Committee. 

By Mr. Vv'ilson : 

Q. I^ow, Mr. Kendall, I don't want you to take offense at what 
I ask you. A. Certainly sir. 

Q. But is there any confusion in your mind over my ques- 
tions this morning? A. Yes, sir, more or less. 

Q. And you have some difficulty in fully apprehending what I 
wish to arrive at,? A. I have some difficulty in apprehending 
what is in your mind. 

Q. And the questions don't seem clear to you ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Well, I suggest that a question 
be asked now and that we proceed. This argument is not proper. 

Mr. Wilson. — Well, I think I will get to it in a briefer way. 

Q. 'Now, on Wednesday, April 2d, or the day before, were you 
interviewed by a reporter of the Sun ? A. I don't recollect, sir. 
Q. Well, will you look. — 

Mr. Wilson. — I will have this marked for identification. 



148 

The Chairman. — What is that? 

Mr. Wilson. — I show him a copy of the Sun of Wednesday, 
April 2, 1913. 

The Chairman. — Mark it for identification, the 'New York 
Sun. 

Paper received and marked Defendant's Exhibit 4 for identifi- 
cation of this date. 

Q. Will you look at this and see if you recognize — did you 
read the Sun of that day? A. I do not know, sir. 

Q. Well, will you look and see if you did (handing Defend- 
ant's Exhibit 4 to witness). A. What is the part you want me 
to read, sir? 

Q. I want to see if you recognize that as an interview or a 
statement that you gave out to the newspapers? A. I don't 
recollect having given out any statement to the newspapers, sir, at 
all. 

Q. Well, let me just call your attention to this and see whether 
this will refresh your recollection? 

The Chairman. — The sergeant-at-arms will stop that confusion 
outside the door. There is a lot of confusion and we cannot hear 
very well. 

Q. '' Mr. Kendall related the following story of alleged at- 
tempts at extortion." Do you recall that? A. No, sir. 

Q. ;N'ow, beginning there (indicating) ? A. There and to 
where, sir? 

Q. Well, enough to see whether that is the story as you gave 
it out ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He says he did not give it out. 

Mr. Wilson. — !N'o, he hasn't said any such thing. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. 

Mr. Wilson. — I beg your pardon. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. 

Mr. Wilson. — He says he don't recall. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. Then your question is as- 
suming something that has not been proven. 

Mr. Wilson. — That is what I am asking him, whether he does 
recall. 



149 

Q. Have you examined it siifficientlj to identify it? A. 'No, 
sir. 

(Witness continues reading Defendant's Exhibit 4 for identi- 
fication). 

Mr. Wilson. — Well, it seems to me he can answer that. 

The Chairman. — We are dealing with a great deal of immaterial 
stuff. What is the question ? 

The Witness. — I see that this is signed G. A. Field. Is it proper 

for me to ask Mr. Field if he gave this out ? 

The Chairman. — No. What is the question. 

Mr. Wilson. — I asked him — 

Q. I ask you if that is an interview you gave out to the news- 
papers ? A. I don't recollect, sir. 

The Chairman. — That settles it. All right. The next question. 

Mr. Wilson. — Well, all right. 

Q. ISTow, did you state — did you talk with newspaper men and 
give out a statement ? A. I have talked with newspaper men. I 
don't recollect giving out any statement. To help you sir, on that, 
Mr. Field — 

The Chairman. — That is all. You have answ^ered the question. 
You don't recollect giving out a statement. 

Q. Did you state this, is this true — I will read only a portion of 
it — '^ I said to him through the telephone," ' Well, I have been 
fighting for thirty years to get justice, and I am not going to be 
thrown down now.' " Did you say that ? A. Whether I said so 
or not, I don't know, but it is true. 

Q. '^ Mr. Stilwell, ' I have been helping you all I can, and you 
know that I have been friendly to you all along.' " Did Stilwell 
say that to you ? A. Yes, sir. 

Attorney-G-eneral Carmody. — By the way, your question is, 
did he say that ? 

Q. Did you tell the newspapers that — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — One moment. 

The Witness.— I don't think I did. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — One moment. The counsel has 



160 

started to ask what he said to the newspapers, and now he turns 
and asks what he said to Senator Stilwell. 

Mr. Wilson. — I did, too. He said he did not know whether 
the interview was correct or not. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — If he is asked about the news- 
papers, I suggest that it be confined to that, and not get the witness 
mixed up. 

Mr. Wilson.- — I am asking him both, whether he said that to 
the newspapers and to Senator Stilwell. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Is the last question whether he 
said to the newspapers or Senator Stilwell ? 

Mr. Wilson. — I am asking him now what Mr. Stilwell said to 
him. 

The Witness. — ■ Mr. Stilwell said to me — 

Q. 'No. Did he say that to you ? A. Just what you have read 
there. 

Q. '^ I have been helping you all I can, and you know I have 
been friendly to you all along." A. Mr. Stilwell said to me over 
the phone. 

Q. That ends that. Did you tell that to the newspapers ? A. 
ISTo, I do not think I did. 

Q. " I said to Mr. Stilwell, ' Yes, but I have been thrown down 
now, and I am going to rip everything open clear to the sky, to 
see if I can get justice.' " Did you say that to Stilwell? A. I 
did, sir. 

Q. " I am fighting the fight of my life, and if I go down doing 
it, I don't care a damn." Did you tell him that? 

The Chairman. — Tell who that. Counselor ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Why, Mr. Stilwell, over the phone. 

The Witness. — I don't think I used that word '' damn," sir. 

Q. Well, did you tell the reporters ? A. I tell you sir — 
Q. Well, all right. A. I do not think I had any interview 
with the reporters. 

The Chairman. — That answers the question. 

The Witness. — I think that is the interview with Mr. Field. 



151 

The Chairman. — Never mind. You have answered the 
question. 

Q. '' I will either get that bill passed, or I will be the worst 
licked man in Albany or anywhere else." Did you tell him that ? 
A. I don't think so. 

Q. That in substance ? A. Very possibly, with several shades 
of the meaning over. 

Q. Was Field more violent of expression than you ? A. Well — 

Q. I will waive that, if you don't want to answer. A. I wish to 
answer it, sir. I don't know. 

Q. Well, very well. Aside from the ^' damn " you did say that ? 
A. The general sentiment of what you are speaking there, sir, I 
stand responsible to as having said to Mr. Stilwell over the phone. 

Q. And that correctly reflected your state of mind at that time ? 
A. Very closely. I won't question the difference between the fact 
and the closeness to it. 

Q. Did you tell the nev/spapers " — this time it is the news- 
papers — did you tell the newspapers that you said to Stilwell, 
" Probably the papers won't publish it if we give this to them." 
A. I think I used those exact words threatening Mr. Stilwell, sir. 

Q. " But after every legislator gets this telegram, it will be 
a public document." A. I think I said that, sir. 

Q. ''And if necessary I will put a sign across my building or 
in front of the Capitol at Albany." A. I think that is news- 
paper enterprise, pure and simple. 

Q. And that is what you told him joii would do ? A. I beg 
your pardon, sir. I don't think I ever said it. 

Q. That you think is newspaper enterprise? A. Enterprise. 

Q. Didn't you say to Senator Stilwell, '' Probably the papers 
won't publish it if we give it to them, but after every legislator 
gets this telegram it will be a public document ? " A. I think 
I said those exact words, sir. I think I remember telling Mr. 
Field, I think he heard me. 

Q. And you told the newspapers too, " If necessary I will put 
a sign across my building or in front of the Capitol at Albany ? " 
A. I am very sure sir, those words never passed my mouth. 

Q. You were in the habit of displaying signs on your building, 
were you not ? 

Mr. Lyon. — That is objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and 
immaterial. 



152 

The Chairman. — Objection sustained. 
Mr. Wilson. — Give me an exception. 

Q. Then you were threatening the Senator ? A. I was. 

Q. With exposure ? A. I was. 

Q. Menacing him. A. I was. 

Q. What for ? A. Because he had demanded a bribe of me 
to report my bill out of his Committee. That is what for. 
Would you disapprove of it? 

Q. You mean he had attempted to extort money from you for 
legislation ? A. For reporting my bill out of committee^ sir ; call 
it legislation or not, sir, whatever you please. I don't know 
your terms. 

Q. You found that unless you conformed to certain conditions 
that he made, that you could not get your bill reported ? A. He 
said so, sir. 

Q. So you made up your mind that you would denounce him ? 
A. I did — no. 

Q. That you had threatened him — ? A. No, I had not at 
that time come to the conclusion to denounce him at all. It had 
not come in my mind at that time to denounce him, as I thought 
that the matter had probably better be suppressed, even if it 
hurt me and my own interest. 

Q. Very well. A. It was only after that that I came to the 
conclusion that I ought to make the matter public. 

Q. 'NoWy did he say in response to that, " 1 will see what I 
can do with my Committee ?" A. He did. 

Q. And did you say, '' Is the legislature now in session ?" A. 
I did. 

Q. And did he answer, '^ Yes," and we are having a meeting 
of the Codes this afternoon." A. I remember it perfectly. 

Q. Did you say, " I don't want to send these telegrams out or 
put you in any whole, but I want to get justice, and if that bill is 
not reported out of both Committees this afternoon I shall let the 
telegrams go." A. I did, sir. I assumed the responsibility of it. 

Q. What influence did you think he had with the Assembly 
Committee ? A. The same friendliness that exists among men 
that know each other. 

Q. When he said to you that he would do all that he could 
and had been doing all that he could to advance your bill in the 
Senate Committee, did you believe what he said ? A. I knew it 
was the truth. 



153 

Q. You knew it was the trutli. Then why did yon threaten to 
disgrace and degrade him and ruin his family, unless he was able 
to control the Assembly Codes Connnittee? A. Because I would 
not stand for being held up for a bribe after having gone that far 
and having come to the conclusion that when the man took $250 
from me, after the Governor had sent me to him, that he was no 
better than a bribe taker and a thief. 

Q. Then you believed at that time that he was a thief, is that 
right? A. i did. 

Q. You believed that he w^as a liar ? A. One moment, Give 
me time to answer. I have not said so, and I don't think so. I 
think he had been telling the truth. 

Q. You believed that he had tried to sell out to you for $500 
and you had cheapened him up to $250. Was that your notion 
of it ? A. There is no such testimony, sir. 

Q. I am asking you now, sir. Did you believe that when you 
paid the $250 to Lewis that it was to go secretly to Senator Stil- 
well ? A. 'Noj sir ; I believed — 

Q. You have answered. A. One minute. I w^ant to answer. 
I insist on having the privilege of answering your question. 

Q. ^o, sir. From this time on I insist that this gentleman 
answer questions. A. If he asks me some I will answer them. 

The Chairman. — Your attorney will have a chance to bring 
that out. You have answered the question. Now your attorney 
can bring your explanation out on re-direct examination. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — There is a question there. 

The Chairman. — Eead the question. 

Question read '' Q. I am asking you now, sir, did you be- 
lieve that when you paid the $250 to Lewis, that it was to go 
secretly to Senator Stilwell ? " 

Mr. Wilson. — I submit he has answered it. He says he did 
not believe it. 

Mr. Lyon. — He asked for his belief. 

The Chairman. — He states no, sir. You can bring this all 
out on your re-direct examination of the witness. 

The Witness. — I wish my attorney to make a note of that 
question, if the stenogTapher will please give the question. 



154 

The Chjairman. — You can give a broad and full explanation 
when the redirect examination conies. 

The Witness. — I have not stated mj belief. 

The Chairman. — You can state it that time. 

Q. When he told you to send the check to Lewis, a man that 
he would introduce you to, did you believe that he, Stilwell, was 
to receive- the check? A. The money from it. 

Q. Yes. Did you believe that having it made and sent to 
Lewis -was to conceal the fact that he himself had direct negoti- 
ations with you? Simply yes or no as to what you believed. 
A. I paid small attention to the matter up to a certain point. 

Q. I did not ask you that. I asked you whether you believed 
that. It is a question of belief and intent. 

Q. Read the question, will you ? 

Question read. '' Q. Did you believe that having it made and 
sent to Lewis was to conceal the fact that he himself had direct 
negotiations with you ? " Simply yes or no as to what you 
believed. A. I can't answer what I believed with yes or no. 

Q. You cannot answer whether you believed that he had asked 
you for that money for the purpose of influencing his conduct as 
a member of the Senate Codes Committee ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is a different question. 

Mr. Wilson. — He don't need any help. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — You say he cannot answer the 
question. You have not asked this question yet. 

The Witness. — Won't you read the question ? 

Question read, ^^ Q. You can't answer whether you believed 
that he had asked you for that money, for the purpose of in- 
fluencing his conduct as a member of the Senate Codes Committee." 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The question he said he could 
not answer was not that question at all. 

The Witness. — One minute. I am going to have a chance to 
answer. 

The Chairman. — Eead both questions. 

Questions read, '^ Q. Did you believe that having it made and 
sent to Lewis was to conceal the fact that he himself had direct 
negotiations with you ? Simply yes or no as to what you believed. 



155 

Q. You can't answer whether jon believed that he had asked you 
for that money for the purpose of influencing his conduct as a 
member of the Senate Codes Committee ? 

The Chairman. — State what you can answer. 

The Witness. — Why, I paid small attention to it. I did not 
gain any beliefs one way or the other. It was only a matter of 
$250. I was surprised at any demand being made after being 
introduced — 

Q. I did not ask for that. A. I paid no attention to it. It 
didn't seem to me j) roper. 

Mr. Wilson. — I submit we are entitled to have this gentleman 
answer questions. 

The Witness. — It didn't seem to me proper. I really didn't 
think about it one way or the other and didn't care. 

Q. You did not care about it? A. The payment to him of 
$250 for drawing the bill. Had he never made any further 
demand on me, I should never have thought of it five times after- 
wards in my life. 

Q. Well, you understood then that w^hen you paid him the 
$250 he was to act as your counsel in that matter? A. Do you 
put that in the form of a question or statement ? 

Q. I ask you if you believed that ? A. Why certainly not. He 
was not to act as my counsel, in the matter of legislation as my 
counsel. 

Q. Yes. A. I don't think that would be proper. I know 
better than to ask on© to be my counsel on existing legislation. 

Q. Did you ask him to draw your bill? A. 'No, sir; he 
volunteered. 

Q. Did you testify before the Committee yesterday that he 
said to you " I am a lawyer. I have a partner. I can't do this 
work, or if I do it I am entitled to pay for it." Did you testify 
to that ? A. Whether I so testified or not, I don't recollect, but 
whether I so testified or not it is true. 

Q. All right. Then after he had told you that he was a 
lawyer, that he could not draw your bill unless he got paid for it, 
that he was entitled to pay for it, you gave him $250. A. Yes, 
I couldn't suspect a man the Governor introduced me to. 

Q. You did not even then suspect he was acting for you as 
counsel ? A. Of course he wasn't. 



156 

Q. You say lie told you lie would not act for you, unless you 
paid him, and you paid him ? A. ISTo, he asked me to pay him 
for drafting the bill, and as the Governor sent me to him I 
thought it was probably right and that I didn't know the ways 
up here. 

Q. Your mind does not work entirely like ordinary minds. 
A. You need not testify about my mind unless you take the 
stand. 

Q. Now why did you think he wanted the check sent to Mr. 
Lewis? A. Well, I don't knov/. It didn't look right to me. 

Q. It did not look right to you then ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But you say you had never suspected anything until long 
afterwards? A. Until after he had made a demand for four of 
his committeemen ; $500 a piece, a fool demand because he only — 

Q. You have answered it. A. He said there Avere nine, he did 
not want anything, and there were four men that eould carry 
that without paying the others if they wanted to, very deficient — 

Q. Then when you sent the $2'50 to Lewis you were thinking 
something that did not look right to you in your own mind, you 
say? A. I was surprised at it. I did not pay much attention 
to it one way or the other. 

Q. You were surprised but did not pay any attention? A. I 
did not know what was customary — 

Q. All right, let us go a little further : '^ I then said to him 
I do not want to send these telegrams out or put you in any 
hole, but I ^YRllt to get justice, and if that bill is not reported 
out by both committees this afternoon the telegrams go." Did 
you say that to Senator Stilwell over the telephone ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What for? A. Because I hated to put this man in the 
hole with existing confessions out against him which do not ap- 
pear on this record and not yet here in this court. 

Mr. Byrne. — I move to strike the answer out. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is an answer. He asked 
him — 

The Chairman. — Objection overruled. Proceed. 

Q. You did not want to put him in a hole ? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. But what you did want him to do was to see to it upon the 
peril of his life that not only his committee but a committee of 
the Assembly reported out that bill ? 



157 

Mr. Lyon. — We object to tliat. 

A. We have been all over that. I have answered it. 

The qnestion was thereupon repeated by the stenographer at 
the request of the witness as folio w^s : '' Q. But what you did 
want him to do was to see to it upon the peril of his life that 
not only his committee but a committee of the Assembly reported 
out your bill ^ '' A. Yes, sir ; if he had not reported out that 
bill and done it that day I would liaA'e let everything go, the 
information broadcast, because I would not stand for his at- 
tempting to sell me his own committeemen at $500 apiece. 

Q. Even if it had sent you to State's prison t A. I don't 
care where I go. I am only telling the truth. 

Q. I imagine that you don't care where you go '? A. And I 
am not afraid of you or anyone else. 

Q. Then you don't care what you do provided you get 
revenge ? A. Provided I do right. 

Q. And you thought it was right to compel a Senator of the 
great State of ^N'ew York upon peril of being disgraced and his 
family ruined that he should ffet vour bill out of a committee 
in a house to which he did not belong? A. Yes, after he had 
set a price of $500 apiece on his own men, and $1,500 for a 
committee with which he was not connected. 

Q. You believed then that you at last had placed him in a 
place where you w^ould either have your ovvn way with the Legis- 
lature of the State of Xew York or you would degrade and 
destroy him ? A. My dear sir, I am not attempting to run the 
Legislature of Xew York. 

Q. You wasn't ? A. jSTo, sir. It is simph' a member of his 
body that is as well kno\\m to you as I as a criminal. 

Q. What is that, wdiat do you saj, Avho is well known as a 
criminal ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I do not think that should 
stand on the record; this is no part of cross-examination, and I 
believe that we should maintain the lines that have been laid 
out by this committee for the purpose of conducting this in- 
vestigation. I do not think that is a proper answer although he 
is a witness produced here by us to bring out testimony, and I 
ask that that answer go out. 

The Chairman. — I would like to have that answer read. 



158 

The stenographer thereupon read the answer as follows : " It 
is simply a member of his body that is as Avell known to yon as I 
as a criminal." 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I move to strike it out. 

The Chairman. — 'No, proceed. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — May I hear that read again ? 

The stenographer thereupon read the answer as follows : " It 
is simply a member of his body that is as well known to you as I 
as a criminal." 

The Witness. — I did not make that answer. 

Mr. Wilson. — The record stands as made I take it. 

The Chairman. — Yes. 

Senator Thomas. — ^N'ote that he says he did not make that 
answer. 

The Chairman. — Proceed. 

Q. Then did Senator Stilwell reply, " That is not fair, Mr. 
Kendall, for I have nothing to do with the Assembly Committee. 
I might be able to get it out as a personal favor to me from my 
Committee, but you know that I cannot control the Assembly." 
Did Senator Stilwell say that to you ? A. Those exact words. 

Q. Those exact words ? A. Yes. 

Q. '' There are 15 members of that and I cannot do anything 
there." Did he say that to you ? A. I do not recollect. 

Q. Did you give out that report that that was what he said to 
you ? A. I have told you before several times I think I never had 
that interview. I think it is one that Mr. Field gave out. I 
don't remember a'ivine; out that interview. 

Mr. Wilson. — ^I move to strike that out (No ruling). 

Q. I ask you again, sir, and call your attention particularly to 
the language of this : '' That is not fair, Mr. Kendall. I have 
nothing to do with the Assembly Committee." Do you remember 
that ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. '^ I might be able to get it out as a personal favor to me from 
my Committee, but you know that I cannot control the Assembly." 
A. I remember that. 

Q. '' There are 15 members of that and I cannot do anything 



159 

there." A. Wait a minute. Whether I ever gave out such an inter- 
vievv^ or not I don't know but I think that that is true. He said 
that to me, yes. 

Q. Very well. A. It comes to me now. 

Q. Did he say to you over the 'phone — A. Yes, sir, 

Q. '^ I might be able to get it out as a personal favor to me 
from my committee but you know that I cannot control the 
Assembly. There are 15 members of that and I cannot do any- 
thing there." A. I have said that, too. 

Q. How many days before that had you got a telegram from 
him saying ^^ The number is 15 ; the correct number is 15 ? " A. 
Two or three days. 

Q. ISTow, on March 25th, had you received this telegram from 
him marked Exliibit 17 ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that is the telegram that reads, '' George H. Kendall, 
76 Fifth xVvenue, Isew York. Fifteen is the correct number. 
Stilwell." A. It so reads, sir. 

Q. It so reads. A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then the next thing; let me take the letter that came the 
day after this telephone message. 

The Chairman. — ^AVhat was the date of the telephone message ? 

Mr. Wilson. — February 25th. 

Q. ^ow then, you received this letter marked Exhibit 8, post- 
marked at Albany on the 27th? A. Postmarked at 11 p. m., 
Albany, the 27th. I received that — 

Q. I don't care when you received it ? A. I received it, yes. 

Q. That is all I want to know of you. A. Thank you, sir. 

Q. Then your telegram you received on the 25th? A. Yes. 

Q. And you had a conversation with him on the 26th? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Urging him to report your bill out of the committee? A. 
Urging him ? 

Q. Threatening him ? A. Threatening him. 

Q. Very well. Then he wrote to you ^' In the telegram I sent 
you I said the number of members of Assembly Codes Committee 
was fifteen. This is a mistake in the count. I find that the 
correct number is 13." Is that right ? A. l^o, sir, it is a lie. 

Q. What is a lie ? A. That he ever said to me that the correct 
number of the committee is fifteen, that the number was fifteen. 
That is a lie. 



160 

Q. Wei] then, when this telegram that I have just shown yon 
and that you say you received '' Fifteen is the correct number " 
— you did not understand that he referred to the Codes Com- 
mittee ? A. It did not refer to the Codes Committee. It referred 
to the number of hundreds of dollars that was to be paid for the 
Codes Committee. 

Q. Just wait a minute. Now, when he said to you on the day 
following the telegram : ^^ I might be able to get it out as a per- 
sonal favor to me from my committee but you know that I can- 
not control the Assembly, there are fifteen members of that and 
I cannot do anything there " — A. He said that to me, sir. 

Q. He said that to you no matter what the telegram says ? A. 
'No matter what the telegram says he said that to me. 

Q. Then he did say to you notwithstanding you say it is a 
lie — did he say to you over the telephone that the number of 
members of the Codes Committee of the Assembly was fifteen ? 
A. I think so, sir. 

Q. You can't dodge that any more ? A. I don't wish to dodge 
it. 

Q. Then what do you want to sit here and accuse this man of 
being a liar for? A. Because he is. 

Q. You have some malice against this man, haven't you? A. 
No, I am sorry for him. I would be glad to hush up the whole 
matter and give the man a chance. 

Q. You will be gladder hereafter; you are the one that wants 
a chance ? A. Thank you, sir. 

Q. You have called everybody a liar and thief for the last 30 
years, haven't you ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I object to that. 

The Chairman. — Objection sustained. 

Q. You are pretty vituperative when you get mad ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Objected to. 

The Chairman. — Objection sustained. 

Q. You are pretty vengeful ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Objected to. 

Mr. Wilson. — I think I have a right to show the facts when 
he stands here and accuses a man of being a liar when the docu- 
mentary evidence is — 



161 

The Chairman. — The Committee will take it into considera- 
tion. 

Mr. Wilson. — I hope they will, but I have to place before 
the Committee some evidence on which to form a judgment to 
take it into consideration. 

The Chairman. — We are getting it. 

Q. So when he said that he liad informed you that the number 
of the Codes Committee was 15 and that he found it was only 13 
you believed he lied, did you ? A. I know he lied about it. 

Q. You still believe it was 15 and not 13 ? A. Oh, no, be- 
cause he was trying to make it appear that $1,500 was for fifteen 
men. 

Q. JSTow, when he told you that he knew he could not do any- 
thing with the Assembly Committee and advised you that there 
were 15 members of it, did you believe what he said; just that? 
A. ^"o. 

Q. You believed that he could do something with the Codes 
Committee ? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you believe that there were 15 ? A. You are speaking 
of the Assembly side ? 

Q. Of the Assembly, yes ? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you believe he could? A. I did. And he did. He 
had to. 

Mr. Wilson. — I move to strike that out. 

The Chairman. — We cannot have this laughter and conversa- 
tion going on in the rear of the room. If it does not cease I will 
have to direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to clear the room. I don't 
want to do that unless it is absolutely necessary. The latter part 
of that answer may be stricken out " and he did, he had to." That 
is a conclusion. 

Q. Then you believed if he wanted to he could control the 
xlssembly Committee ? A. Under the propulsion back of him. 

Q. What propulsion was there back of him? A. The propul- 
sion back of him was the belief that I would do as I said and 
telegraph this whole business to the Governor and every legislator 
if he did not ; and he did. 

Q. Then you believed that if you put the screws to him strong 
enough that he was a man of sufficient importance and his rela- 
tion to legislation here at Albany was such that he could control 



162 

a committee to which he did not belong and in a house of which 
^Jie was not a member. That you believed, did you? A. That 
is a pretty long question. Will you read it please? 

The stenographer thereupon repeated the question as follows : 
" Then you believed that if you put the screws to him strong 
enough that he was a man of sufficient importance and his rela- 
tion to legislation here at Albany was such that he could control 
a committee to which he did not belong and in a house of which 
he was not a member." That you believed, did you ? A. Yes. 

Q. And you also believed that under your threat and under the 
fear that you would carry out your threat that he did so control 
that committee ? A. Yes, sir, without paying a dollar. 

Q. And he did not pay them a dollar ? A. Ko, sir. 

Q. How do you think he got them, by swapping legislation ? 
A. I should have to take some time to make up my mind as to 
how he got them. 

Q. How long would it take you to give this Senate Committee 
an opinion of how a member of their committee grabs a committee 
over in the other House. I would like to get at that ? A. It is a 
supposition to me. 

Q. Well, give us your suppositions. A. I am not good on 
suppositions. 

Q. Pretty fair, allowing me to be the judge. Well then, in — 
A. I don't know how he did it, and I cannot form an opinion, 
but I believe that if he went — oh yes, I can. 

Senator Brown. — I object myself to the statement of any sup- 
positions which is based on no facts whatever, that may reflect 
upon the other members of the committee. If there is the slightest 
evidence I do not object. 

Mr. Wilson. — I think it has been proved here that there is 
not the slightest foundation for any charge against any member 
of this Senate or of this Assembly unless it is against Senator 
Stilwell, and I am trying now to demonstrate that under a certain 
impulse he would be just as willing to charge every member of 
this Judiciary Committee or of the Assembly Codes Committee 
as he was this man. That is all I asked for, but I am quite will- 
ing not to take his supposition ? 

The Witness. — I can answer the question. 
Q. What is that? A. I think I can answer that question now 
that I have thought it over. 



163 

Q. You can intelligently answer it? A. I think I cau answer 
it, if you kindly leave out the '' intelligently." 

The Chairman. — Proceed and answer, Mr. Witness. 

The Witness. — I think that the committee were all favorable 
to it anyway. That is my answer. 

Q. That's good. Well, then, what comes of your other prop- 
osition that under the terror that you threw into him, he induced 
them to do it? A. I don't think it was a difficult job. I don't 
think they had any $1,500 coming to them, and I think they 
would have done it anyway. 

Q. Did you speak to Assemblyman Knott about it at any 
time ? A. About what ? 

The Chairman. — Counselor, has not all this been gone over 
before ? 

Mr. Wilson. — 'No, sir. I am asking him now if after he was 
advised that it would take money to control the Codes Committee, 
after he had threatened Senator Stilwell, as he says, and he had 
told him he could not do anj^thing with the Codes Committee, 
I am asking him now if he said anything to x\ssemblyman Knott 
about it ? 

The Witness. — Yes, sir. 

Q. When first? A. I don't recollect. 

Q. On the 25th or 26th of March? A. Will you tell me what 
day of the month Saturday was previous to the sending of that 
telegram. 

Q. No. I am not going to look up dates for you. A. Then 
may I have my counsel ? 

Q. I waive the question rather than that. A. You don't want 
that answer. You know what's coming to you. 

Senator McClelland. — I think that last obser^^ation ought not 
to go in there. 

Q. After he had said what you have testified to, that there 
were fifteen members, and I can't do anything, then did you say 
to him. '^ I have a diiferent opinion. You are a man of import- 
ance, and there is such a community of interest that you could 
get it reported if you wanted to ? " A. Everything is correct, 
except you have misstated one word. Not ^^ community," comity. 
C-o-m-i-t-y of interest, not community. 



164 

Q. I am aware that you testified yesterday, and your counsel 
corrected me, that what you said was '' comity '' instead of 
community of interest, but I ask you if what you did say to 
him over the phone was community of interest? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. So the reporters got you all wrong, when you said you 
told him there was such a community of interest among them 
here? A. There is no testimony here that I told the reporters. 
It is just the other way, and I don't like your tactics. 

Q. You didn't tell the reporters so then, is that right ? 

The Chairman. — The witness has so stated, counsel. 

Mr. Wilson. — I didn't so understand him. 

The Chairman. — Yes, he stated he has no recollection of giv- 
ing out an interview. 

Q. Do I understand you that you have no recollection previous 
to Wednesday, April 2nd, of talking with any newspaper re- 
porters, or giving out any interview ? A. What you understand, 
God only knows. 

Q. God only knows, that's right. You have got onto another 
subject now. A. You asked me some question. 

Q. I asked you if on April 2nd, or previous to that time you 
had given out an interview to the press in New York of your 
version of what occurred between you and Senator Stilwell ? A. 
I don't recollect doing so, sir. I don't think I did. 

Q. Do you mean to say after showing you a whole batch of 
what purports to be an interview with you, that you don't re- 
member whether you gave out anything or not ? A. I don't think 
I did, sir. I passed through the room two or three times. I 
think that is Mr. Field. He is here. You can call him and 
find out. 

Q. You think you left it to Field to fix it up? A. What do 
you mean, to :^x it up ? 

Q. To ^x up the interview, to match up the evidence. A. I 
think I am entitled to protection against that form of question. 

The Chairman. — Counselor, we have gone over this matter 
enough. 

The Witness. — I appeal to you, sir ; to be either sustained 
or- — 

The Chairman. — You have been sustained in your position. 



165 

The Witness. — Thank yon, sir. 

Q. Well then, yon did say to him all that I have read to yon, 
and what is reported in the Snn as coming from you, except 
that you used the word " comity " instead of community of inter- 
ests. 

Mr. Lyon. — That is objected to. 

The Chairman. — Objection sustained. 

Mr. Wilson. — Do I understand that that is not what he says ? 

The Chairman. — We have gone over it too many times, and 
he has stated to you, as I understand it — I think we have gone 
over that. 

Mr. Wilson. — I do not want any misunderstanding of whether 
he had admitted it or not, because there is only one more question 
in connection with it. 

Q. Did he say, in answer to that, ^' Oh, no. , It is impossible. 
You might as well understand that now. It is impossible to do 
anything. I don't even know when they hold their meetings ? " 
A. I think that is correct, sir. 

Q. Senator Stilwell told you that ? A. I think so, sir. That 
is my recollection. 

Q. Did you then say to him, " Well, I am on the wire, and 
you can talk with me in fifteen minutes. Think it over and let 
me know about it. You know I have been perfectly straight and 
fair with you, and you know I will do what I say, but I have got 
to know that this bill is reported out by the two committees this 
afternoon ? " A. I so said. 

Q. And you said it to him with a view of compelling him to 
do what you think he otherwise would not have done ? A. I did. 
Will you kindly ask me about the rest of that interview ? 

Q. 'No. A. Where I read in that telegram and asked him to 
deny anvthing in it, if it wasn't there that I would prove it ? 

Q. No. 

The Chairman. — Your counsel may bring that out. 

The Witness. — Thank you, sir. 

Q. Now, you have had some experience with legislative investi- 
gations before, haven't you? A. One, sir. 
Q. That was in Richmond, Ya. ? A. Yes, sir. 



; ' 166 

Q. And you have brought all your documents relating to it, 
haven't you? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have got them all here, and you were ready before we 
knew anything about it, weren't you? 

Mr. Lyon. — Objected to. 

The Chairman. — Objection sustained. 

Q. And you gave out a newspaper report before we had time 
to investigate whether there was anything in the charge? A. 
After your grand play to the galleries here, I was told what was 
in it. You asked an adjournment. 

Q. Who told you? A. My counsel. 

The Chairman. — ^ow, gentlemen, that is enough on that 
proposition. 

Mr. Wilson. — That is perfectly proper. That is what I showed 
it to the attorney for, so that he would be advised so we would 
know whether it was true or not. 

Q. So the information we had turned out to be true? A. I 
don't know what information you had, sir. 

Q. I^ow, that is enough of that. A, I think so, sir. I don't 
think you dare pursue it any further. 

Q. You wait a few minutes and see. What have you got in 
your hand there? A. An envelope containing many papers, sir. 

Q. Eelating to the Richmond bribery matter? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I object to that. 
The Chairman. — Sustained. 

Q. Well now, will you kindly lay it down and listen to this ? 
A. I don't think I have to lay this down. 

Q. You have had some experience in legislative investigation, 
where the question of bribery was involved, is that right? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I do not care to interpose any 
objection to this, if we have an understanding as to the rule of 
evidence that is going to apply to this investigation. This line 
of testimony can have only one purport, and that is to affect the 
credibility of the witness, and if the Committee is going to per- 
mit it, I have no objections. If the investigation is going in that 
line of evidence, I want the rule adopted now, and I give notice 
that we will expect it to be followed throughout the entire inves- 
tigation. 



167 

The Chairman. — This is nothing that jou are bringing out 
now that has been brought out on direct examination. 

Mr. Wilson. — That is true, but whatever the consequences may 
be, if that is intended as a threat, as long as I am here and doing 
what I conceive to be my duty to my client, as long as I believe 
that the man has given testimony here, which if true, convicts this 
man of bribery, I shall do what I can to satisfy this Committee 
that his evidence is unworthy of credence, and that much of it 
is false. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Understand I am not objecting 
to the testimony. 

The Chairman.^ The position is this. This is a collateral 
issue you are taking up, I assume, for the purpose of testing the 
credibility of this witness. 

Mr. Wilson. — Certainly. It would not be for any other pur- 
pose. 

The Chairman. — 'Now the Committee will take this position, 
counselor. You may go on and test the credibility of this wit- 
ness by bringing up collateral issues, as we will allow the testimony 
to come before the Committee if you wish it, and we will follow 
this rule out. 

Mr. Wilson. — I am not going to take up collateral issues. 
There are two ways of impeaching a man I take it. One way 
is on cross examination for the purpose of showing his malice, 
his hatred, his unfairness. That is one way, by cross examina- 
tion. Another way is by bringing witnesses to speak directly to 
his character. My purpose now is to show, he having sworn him- 
self into the position he has — I think I can now proceed to suc- 
cessfully impeach him. 

The Chairman. — Proceed, counselor. 

Mr. Wilson. — Very well. 

Q. Xow, are you acquainted with the penal laws of this state ? 
A. N"o, sir, never saw a book. 

Q. Do you know what the penalty is for bribing a member of 
the Legislature ? A. I don't know and am not interested. 

Q. You don't care. Well now; well now, ^vill you listen to 
this ? A. I shall have to. 

Q. " Section 1327. Bribery of members of the legislature. A 



168 

person who gives, or offers or causes to be given or offered, a bribe 
or any money, property or value of any kind, or any promise or 
agreement thereof, to a member of tbe legislature, or attempts di- 
rectly or indirectly by menace, deceit, suppression of truth or 
other corrupt means to influence a member to give or withhold his 
vote, or to absent himself from the house of which he is a mem- 
ber, or from any committee thereof, is punishable by imprison- 
ment of .not more than ten years or by a fine of not more than 
five thousand dollars, or both." Do you appreciate that? A. Go 
ahead. I am not interested in what you say. Go ahead. 

Q. You are not interested ? A. ISTot particularly, no. I am 
not up for sentence. I am not on trial. You may perhaps 
state — 

The Chairman. — What is the direct question ? 

Mr. Wilson. — I asked him if he is familiar with the statute 
and knows that to attempt to influence a legislator to vote or to 
withhold his vote, by menace, by deceit, by threat, or by sup- 
pression, constitutes a felony, punishable by ten years in state's 
prison. 

The A¥itness. — My reply was that I never had seen the book. 

Q. You don't know whether it is so or not? A. I heard you 
say so, yes. 

Q. Do 3^ou still insist after reading that — A. I haven't read 
it. 

The Chairman. — We have gone into that. That is a matter of 
lav\^. He is presumed to know it. 

Mr. Wilson. — Tie is presumed to know it, I take it. 

Q. Do you still insist, after hearing that read, that you said 
to this man what you admitted you did; that you threatened him, 
that you menaced him, and that by reason of what you said and 
done he reported that bill out of the Committee ? A. Having 
heard that read has nothing to do with what I have stated of the 
facts, as I recollect them, and as I believe them to be, and the con- 
tents of the book has not the slightest bearing, in my mind, on my 
statements. 

Q. 'Now, did you ever read the Constitution of the State of 
ISTew York? A. ^N'o, sir. I have heard it was not much be- 
tween friends. That is as far as my knowledge goes. 



169 

Q. Then you and I being friends, it may be sometbing between 
ns. ^ow has anyone promised you any immunity if you would 
testify in this case ? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. Are you here before this body, recanting, regretting anything 
that you have said or done? A. I am here as a noble act, with 
everything to lose and nothing to gain. 

Q. That is your position ? A. That is my position. 

Q. Have you consulted with the District Attorney of the County 
of New York ? A. I don't know who he is. 

Q. Then you haven't consulted with him ? A. I have not. 

Q. I suppose you have not even heard who he w^as or is. Have 
you had any consultation with the District Attorney of this county 
of Albany ? A. Never heard of him. 

Q. Has anyone in any way promised you immunity for testi- 
fying here ? A. Haven't even promised me $500 for a vote. 

Q. Do you want any immunity ? A. No, and if I did, you are 
not the dispenser of it, either. You are one of the last men I would 
come to. 

Q. I forgive you for anything you have done to me. You and 
I are good friends enough ? A. Sure. 

Q. What is that ? A. Certainly, go on. 

Q. Are you aware of the provision of the Constitution that 
provides that if you should testify here under certain circum- 
stances that you could be granted immunity ? A. T^ever heard of 
such a thing. 

Q. And don't want it ? A. And don't want it. 

Q. That is all on that subject. ISTow, just a few days and I will 
see if I can get near the close. Will you answer a few questions 
as directly as you can ? A. If you ask them, yes. 

Q. You first saw Senator Stilwell in Albany on the 13th of 
February? A. 1913, yes, sir. 

Q. And you there had your first interview with him with 
reference to your bill ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You had consulted with the Governor previous to that and 
had been sent to him because you understood he was Chairman of 
Codes Committee. A. I object to that " because." I was sent to 
him. 

Q. Very well. Can't you get along a minute without splitting 
hairs ? I will be fair with you if you will with me. A. Any way 
you put it. 



170 

Q. You saj lie was about to leave his office or told yoii lie was ? 
A. Yes, sir. Had his hat and coat on. 

Q. You outlined to him briefly the object that you wanted to ac- 
complish? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He seemed to be interested at that time ? A. ISTot until 
after he inquired about the size of the company and the magni- 
tude of the interests. 

Q. I uiiderstand. I don't want to go over all your questions. 
A. All right, sir. 

Q. '^Tiat did you want to put that in for, see if you could not 
get a dig at him? A. I w^ould not hurt your man. I don't 
like your inferenc-e. I am sorrs^ for him. I don't want you to 
ascribe to me things that don't exist. 

Q. You had better save some sympathy for yourself? A. 
Don't you worry about me. 

The Chairman. — Coimsel will stick to the case. Counsel will 
direct a question to the witness and the witness will answer as 
closely as possible. 

Q. I ask if he seemed to take an interest and treated you 
courteously in the legislation you desired ? A. Yes. 

Q. When did you next come to Albany? A. The 19th of the 
same month. 

Q. Had he told you on the 13th that you could go before his 
committee which would meet on the 19th and state your position 
without presenting a formal bill ? A. He did, and so that was — 

Q. That is all ?^ A. He did. 

Q. I only want to go over it briefly ? A. He did. 

Q. And for that reason you came here on the 19th ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Or for one of the reasons ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He was then sitting in his own committee room presiding 
over a Codes Committee relating to moving pictures? A. That 
is in the afternoon. 

Q. The afternoon, yes. A. The 19th. 

Q. You had waited all the afternoon? A. Yes, sir, that is 
right. 

Q. Without an opportunity to converse with him except to 
speak to him? A. That is right, sir. 

Q. Then the first that you did speak to him concerning your 
bill was while his committee was in session on a bill other than 



171 

yours ? A. He called me out in the hall, that is right. He called 
me out in the hall. 

Q. Won't you answer my question ? A. I did not speak to him 
while the committee was in session. 

The Chairman. — Answer the question. Read it. 

Question read. 

A. Yes, in the hallway. 

Q. But the committee still remained in session while he left 
the room i A. Oh, absolutely, sir. 

Q. All right ? A. Oh, absolutely, that is right. 

Q. Are there any members here on this Judiciary Committee 
Avho belong to the Codes Committee and were there on that day ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Which ones ? 

]\Ir. Wilson. — Well, I don't care. Will somebody intimate 
whether there was anybody there or not? 

Senator Stilwell. — Oh, yes. 

The Witness. — These two gentlemen. 

Q. Then there were men there on the committee that if he 
had left the room in which he was presiding and had beckoned yoti 
otit to the hall would probably have seen it ? A. Yes, sir. Others 
did who were present. 

Q. See him beckon you otit ? A. ^N'o, because I was in the 
rear and the Senator sat at the further end of the room. 

Q. You say the Senators saw him beckon to you to go outside ? 
A. I do not think the Senators could see. 

Q. Are you willing to say that somebody saw him beckon you 
out ? A. I am. I have witnesses here in this room. 

Q. You have. That is all. Where did he 2:0 ? A. Out in the 
hall. 

Q. Anywhere else ? A. We walked tip and doA^m the liall 
15 minutes, 20 minutes, 25 minutes. 

Q. Did he leave the room, go to the toilet, and did you follow 
him and meet him when he was coming out ? A. Xo, sir. 

Q. That is not true? A. That is not true. Any man who 
says that is — 

Q. Xever mind. Another liar coming ? A. If you count your- 
self as one. 



1Y2 

Q. You don't want to get up anj controversy with me. Yon 
and I get along well enough? A. You merely have a bad case. 
Q. How long. did this conversation last? 

Senator McClelland. — Is this all taken down ? 

Mr. Wilson. — I wish it might be. 

The Chairman. — 'No. They are little side remarks neither 
beneficial to the committee nor helpful to the record. 

Q. Just how long did you have that conversation ? A. I should 
say we were out in the hall 20 minutes. 

Q. That is the conversation in which you said that he agreed 
to draft the bill for you ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And as a condition of drafting it he wanted $600? A. 
Yes, sir. He had a draft in his pocket and took it out and read 
to me. 

Q. And you told him you would pay ? 

Mr. Wilson. — I move to strike out what he said there. 

Mr. Wilson. — I want him to answer my question. 

The Chairman. — ^^Yhat is it you want stricken out ? 

Mr. Wilson. — He said he had a draft in his pocket. 

The Witness. — And read it to me. 

Mr. Wilson. — I did not ask that and move that it be stricken 
out. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out. 

Q. You finally said you would give him $250 to draft your 
bill? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you then asked him if he wanted the cash then? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. He told you no ? A. He did. 

Q. And you suggested you would send him a check ? A. I^o, I 
think he is the one that suggested. 

Q. You think he was the one ? A. That suggested. With that 
slight difference it is correct. 

Q. What is that? A. I think with that mere difference you 
and I are in accord. 

Q. It may be somewhat important why he asked you to send 
a check? A. He said he would introduce me to a man named 
Mr. Lewis. 



173 

Mr. Wilson. — I move to strike that out. I don't care to repeat 
that evidence. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out. 

Q. Did he or you suggest sending the check ? A. That is after 
I had the talk. 

Q. I say was it you or he ? A. He. 

Q. He suggested that you send the check? A. Yes, that is 
right. 

Q. And told you you could send it to Mr. Lewis ? A. ISTo, he 
said he would introduce me to a man named Lewis. 

Q. I did not ask you that. Did he say you could send it to 
a man named Lewis ? A. Practically yes, hut I had not at that 
time met him. 

Q. Wait a moment. Did he give you Mr. Lewis' name? A. 
Xo, sir. 

Q. Did he introduce you to any man hy the name of Mr. Lewis ? 
A. He did, but not at that interview. 

Q. I asked you that interview. You knew what I meant? 
A. Oh, no. 

Q. He did not ? A. I did not. 

Q. That ended that conversation. The substance was that you 
were to pay $250, he was to draft a bill, the check was to be sent 
to Lewis and you went back in then before the Codes Committee. 
Is that right? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long did that session last ? 

The Chairman. — Which do you mean, the session he had with 
Senator Stilwell or the Codes Committee? 

Mr. Wilson. — This was on the 19 th. 

The Chairman. — What do you mean; how long did that last? 

Q. I meant the session on the moving pictures ? A. There 
were about four bills. . 

Q. Well, how long ? A. It lasted from — 

Q. How long before they got to yours ? A. After dark. 

Q. After dark ? A. After dark. ' 

Q. And while this Committee was still in session they ac- 
corded you the privilege before they adjourned of speaking upon 
a bill which was not before them ? A. That is true. 

Q. That was at the request of Senator Stilwell? A. At the 
request of the Governor, and by the grace of Senator Stilwell. 



174 

Q. At the request of the Governor and by the grace of Senator 
Stilwell. Then the $250 did not get you that hearing,? A. Xo, 
not at all. 

Q. So you are willing to give the Governor credit for that '^ 
A. I don't like your slurs. 

Q. There is no slur about that. You suggested it was at the 
request of the Governor^ by the grace of Senator Stilwell and the 
consent of the Committee ? A. That is right. 

Q. How long did you talk ? A. I should say at least half 
an hour. 

Q. 'Now, when next did you see Senator Stihvell, on the 26th? 
A. -Seven days from that, one week from that. That was Wed- 
nesday, I think. 

Q. That would be on the 26th? A. 26th. 

Q. Did you see him any time between the 19th and 26tli? A. 
I am sure not. 

Q. Xow, bear in mind that he was to draw you a bill. You 
say he had two pieces of paper in his pocket, memoranda ? A. 
No, they weren't memorandum. There were two small sized 
sheets of paper. 

Q. With writing on them? A. In pencil. 

Q. That you had turned over to him or he had turned over to 
you? A. That he spoke of to me as the proposed drafts of the 
bill. 

Q. Wasn't that after you had made your statement to the 
Committee and not before? A. No. 

Q. That was what he showed you? A. We broke out of the 
hearing. These gentlemen were witnesses of it. They all went 
away. I was the last one. There were half a dozen men that 
are here that know it. 

Q. Did you send him the $250 before the 26th? A. Of 
February ? 

Q. Sure. A. ITo, sir. 

Q. You had agreed to it? A. Yes, sir, but he had not intro- 
duced me to the man he said he was to. 

Q. Have you inquired who Lewis was ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Had the Senator so far as you know had any communica- 
tion with you ? A. Unless by letters — 

Q. Had he written you any letter in the interval? A. AYe 
have been over all of them. 



175 

Q. !N^ever mind what we have been over. A. Give me time to 
ransack my memory to find ont and see if he wrote me any letter 
between the 19th of February and the 20th. 

Mr. Wilson. — AYill you hand me the letter of February 20lh ? 

(Mr. Kennedy produces letter.) 

Q. You left here on the 19th, having made this bargain v/ith 
him, that he would draw your bill ; you v/ere to send a check for 
$250 and yet on the 20th you wrote him that letter, the day after, 
did you (handing letter to witness). 

A. Read the question. 

(Question read as follows) : '^ Q. You left here on the 19th, 
having made this bargain with him that he would draw your bill ; 
you were to send a check for $250 and yet on the 20th you v/rote 
him that letter, the day after, did you ? " 

Q. AVhat is the truth ? A. You have two questions before me. 
I cannot answer them at the same time. 

Q. That is the day after the 19 th ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that right ? A. Absolutely correct, yes, sir. 

Q. ISTothing in there about your bill ? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. ^o reference to it whatever ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Was that in reply to any letter that he had written to you ? 
A. ^o, sir, it is in — 

Q. That answers it. A. No, sir. It was not in reply to any 
letter. 

Mr. Wilson. — That is the letter, the committee will recall, in 
which he says " I shall be here in favor of a bill requiring the 
New York Stock Exchange to incorporate at the hearing of Feb- 
ruary 26th." 

Q. Haven't you or didn't you receive a letter from Senator 
Stilwell that there would be a meeting of the Joint Committee of 
the several bills known as the Stock Exchange bills ; didn't you 
receive such a letter as that from him ? A. I recollect his telling 
me there would be, but whether he wrote me a letter or not I do 
not remember. 

Q. What I understood your explanation of that letter was, 
that you wrote up to Senator Stilwell because the Senator had 
asked you to appear before the Committee and therefore you 
concluded you would ask him if you might ? A. What I said to 
the — 



1Y6 

Q. Well, did I imderstand you correctly? -A. I will tell you 
what is correct. The Senator said that some of the matters — 

Q. Oh, I don't care for that. A. — that came up on the 19th 
would be interesting on that bill, and if I would write him a 
letter he would be glad to have me appear and speak there. 

Q. That is what the Senator told you? A. Yes, sir; it is in 
substance. 

Q. Then why did you say this, ^' If this application is not 
properly addressed to you, will you kindly inform me to whom 
to write ? " A. Because it was I think only the second time I 
had met the gentleman. I did not pay much attention to the — 
didn't know whether he was to preside or not and it was merely 
at his request that I came, and told that part of it that interested 
him. 

Q. So he having invited you, you wrote to him to see if you 
could, and if he was not the proper one to address, you wanted to 
know whom you could make application to. Have you any other 
explanation of that letter ? A. Absolutely none. 

Q. Did you see Lewis between that time and the 26th ? A. 
^0, sir. 

Q. You came here on the 26th day of February, the day of the 
hearing before the Joint Committee? A. I did. 

Q. You testified here yesterday that you brought four bills in 
your pocket besides a composite bill ? A. Three or four bills. 

Q. All right. A. Whether I testified so I don't remember, but 
whether I so testified or not that is the truth. 

Q. Had you seen the man you had bought to draw your bill ? 
A. May it please the Court, isn't it proper for me to request the 
gentleman to ask his questions in a less offensive form? Can 
I ask that, that is offensive placing a conclusion on my acts. 

Mr. Wilson. — I will do that at his request. 

The Chairman. — I think the counsel could put his question 
in better form. 

Q. I wull call him your hired man then, instead of the man 
you bought? A. Your Honor — 

The Chairman. — Just a moment. I think if counsel will 
speak about Senator Stilwell — 

Mr. Wilson. — He is making the desig-nation. 

Q. You didn't see Senator Stilwell in 'New York you say — 



177 

A. ^ow, don't tell me what I said unless I said so. You will have 
to — 

Q. I have asked yon if you had seen Senator Stilwell '^ A. — 
be more specific and don't pick out something — 

The Chairman. — Just a moment. 

Mr. Wilson. — May I ask — he said he didn't see Senator Stil- 
well between the 19 th and 26th. 

The Chairman. — Yes. 

The Witness. — That is correct. That is what you mean. That 
is all right. 

Q. And you had no communication from him excepting this 
letter you v/rote to him with reference to the 26th, the hearing? 
A. I had no communication from him except the letter I wrote 
to him. 

Q. Let's don't go over it again. A. What are you talking about ? 

Q. I am talking about the facts ? A. You are an astonishing 
person. 

Q. All right. A. You are an astonishing person. 

Q. Why didn't you go to the man whom you had employed to 
draw your bill instead of going to your own attorney, Mr. Lyon ? 
A. A matter of enterprise on my part to have as many bills drawn, 
to get the benefit of as many minds as possible on the proposed 
legislation. 

Q. That is, you v^ere scattering some. E'ow, when did Lyon 
draw — A. ^ow, one moment. 

Q. I will waive that. When did Lyon draw your bill ? A. 
Well, he is sitting right there. I don't remember the date. 

Q. Did you pay him for drawing it ? A. I did. 

Q. How much ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Is that material here ? 

The Witness. — I request — 

Mr. Lyon. — Objected to. 

The Witness. — I ask jowt Honor — 

The Chairman. — Sustained. 

The Witness. — You are overruled, sir. 

Q. What did that bill relate to ? A. Discrimination of the 'New 
York Stock Exchange against the American Bank Note Company. 



178 

Q. Well, that was the same subject you discussed with Senator 
Stihwell '{ A. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Q. I am quite correct again '{; A. Yes, sir, astonishingly. 
Q. is'ow, Field, he drew one ? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What did that relate to ? A. The discrimination of the New 
York Stock Exchange against all engraving companies except the 
American Bank I^ote Company. 

Q. Did Mr. Field charge you anything for that ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Then you drew one yourself ? A. I did, yes, sir. 

Q. You took a try at that ? A. Don't you like that ? 

Q. Have you got that w^ith you? A. I really didn't think it 
would interest you to see that marvel of legal acumen. 

Q. Legal acumen is good, just as good as comity. What did 
that relate to? A. The same subject as the preceding two or 
three. 

Q. Then you had another one that was a composite. Who got 
that up ? A.I think Mr. Field stood sponsor to that. 

Q. He took the bill that you drew ? A. And he afterward went 
with Mr. Lyon. 

Q. Then all of you having got up a bill, then you combined 
them all into one, what you called the composite, is that correct ? 
A. I mentioned that. It may not be the correct legal term. I am 
not legally educated about that. 

Q. That is good enough. That is, you united all your ideas 
into one ? A. After we had exhausted all we knew about it in 
our different bills. 

Q. And still you did not communicate or go near the gentlemen 
that you had hired or bought ? A. When v/e came up to Albany 
we brought all four with us. 

Q. I didn't ask you that. A. You didn't ? 

Q. ISTo. A. You asked if I didn't go near the man. You don't 
know what you ask me. 

Q. All right. You came up ? A. Yes. 

Q. With the composite bill, Mr. Lyon and yourself and your 
bills ? A. Is that a question ? 

Q. Yes. A. 'No, sir. 

Q. How many did come ? A. Two. 

Q. Who ? A."^ Mr. Field and myself. 

Q. Who brought the bills ? A. I think Mr. Field brought them. 

Q. You trusted them to him. All right. Did you go to see 
Senator Stilwell ? A. We did and tried to get him to read them. 



179 

Q. Tried to what ? A. Tried to get him to read them. 

Q. But he was so busy he did not have time to read them? 
A. My recollection is he had one that we thought was better than 
all of ours, that is my recollection. 

Q. He had some memorandums? A. Yes, I think he had 
some memorandum. 

Q. Let me call your attention. This is on the 26th? A. This 
is the 26th of February, 1913. 

Q. There was no hearing of the Codes Committee that day? 
A. Yes, you are right again. 

Q. It was the Joint Committee that was to meet? A. Yes. 

Q. That was not the committee before which your bills could 
be introduced ? A. Absolutely correct. 

Q. That is, I am absolutely correct? A. You are, sir. 

Q. Thank you. ]Srow did Senator Stillwell show you a draft 
on that occasion or on the occasion of the 19th, which time was 
it that he showed you a draft ? A. Both. Two different drafts. 

Q. Different ones ? A. Two different drafts. 

Q. Had it in his pocket? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Very well. A. I think that on the 26th he did not have 
it in his pocket. I think Mr. Lewis had it. 

Q. What is that ? A. I think Mr. Lewis had it. 

Mr. Wilson. — Mr. Lewis, will you stand up ? 
(Mr. Lewis stands up.) 

Q. Is that the gentleman ? A. That is right. 

Q. Is this the first you ever saw him? A. On the 26th of 
February. 

Q. This gentleman, you say you never spoke to yet ? A. There 
is not any such testimony, no, sir. I have spoken to Mr. Lewis. 

Q. AVell, I am dealing now with Senator Stilwell ? A. I sup- 
pose you are. 

Q. You are not sure now as to whether it was the Senator that 
handed you the draft of the bill or Mr. Lewis ? A. That is 
correct. 

Q. AVlien was the first and where that you saw this young 
man, Mr. Lewis? A. In the Senate Chamber, 24th of February, 
1913. 

Q. Were you introduced to him. A. I was. 

Q. By whom? A. Senator Stilwell. 

Q. Who was present when he introduced him ? A. Mr. Field. 



180 

Q. Tell me liow long that conversation lasted? A. Two or 
three minutes. 

Q. Tell me all that Mr. Lewis said in that conversation ex- 
cluding everything that anyone else said ? A. He said to me that 
he would — he said that he would go with Mr. Field to his room 
and go over the — and work and collaborate with him on the 
various drafts of the bill. 

Q. And' is that the same Lewis you yesterday testified didn't 
say a word ? A. I don't recall testifying so. 

Q. 'Now, going back, you say — A. If I did, I may have been 
correct then. I may be correct now. I am not able to tell what 
Senator Stilwell told him, he won't allow me. 

Q. See if you can't — if we can't pleasantly straighten it out? 
A. Yes. 

Q. That is, you have seen Mr. Lewis ? A. ISTever saw Mr. Lewis 
before. 

Q. Don't you think you may have got the two interviews con- 
fused in your mind, one in the Senate and one in the restaurant ? 
A. I am human, but I shall still have to stick to what I believe 
to be the facts. I am willing to stand on the responsibility. 

Q. What? A. I have stated that I saw Mr. Lewis for the 
first time in my life on the 26th. 

Q. Is that your recollection? A. Oh, no, it is a fact. You 
can let that stand as a fact, on the 26th of February, 1913, in 
the corner of the Senate Chamber and w^as there introduced to 
Mr. Lewis. 

Q. You are confused a little. There could be such a thing 
as your being mistaken ? A. Absolutely yes. 

Q. You did not see Mr. Lewis on the 19th? A. I know that. 

Q. 'Now you are saying you did ? A. I did not. I said the 
26th. 

Q. I imderstood you — I understood it was the 19th. Will 
the stenographer read the answer. 

(The stenographer read the answer.) 

The Witness. — Do you apologize, sir? 

Mr. Wilson. — Yes. I was mistaken. 

Q. May it not be possible that your first interview with Mr. 
Lev/is was in the restaurant? A. I don't regard it as among 
the possibilities. 

Q. It is of no consequence, except to get right? A. I don't 
regard it as probable. 



181 

Q. ISTow, what had been said in the presence of Mr. Lewis by 
which he said to you we will take these bills and go over them'^ 
A. I am not certain he said that to me. I think he said that 
to Mr. Field. 

Q. What did he say to Mr. Field ? A. I am not allowed to 
tell the preceding conversation so I cannot hitch it up; merely 
that they would go over these bills. 

Q. Did Senator Stilwell introduce him to you ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What did he sslj when he introduced him. A. Either just 
before or after, that he would send for the man that I was to 
make out the check to and introduced me to him. 

Q. That he would send for the man that you were to make 
out the check to ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 'Now, let us have the introduction ? A. I do not think that 
we had, because I think he said there he is over there and he 
either beckoned him or Mr. Lewis came that way. 

Q. At any rate he came near you ? A. He came near us. 

Q. Let us see how he introduced him ? A. Merely said to him, 
Mr. Field, Mr. Lewis ; Mr. Kendall, Mr. Lewis. 

Q. Did he say to you this is the young man that I got to draw 
3^our bill for you ; did he say that to you ? A. I don't recollect it. 

Q. Well, do you say he didn't ? A. 1 should say he didn't. 

Q. Didn't he inform you that Mr. Lewis was an expert 
draughtsman and had been connected with the department that 
draws bills, didn't he tell you that? A. I think so, yes, sir; I 
think he told me he was connected. 

Q. 'No, but at that time ? A. I think that was on the 18th. 

Q. Of course it was on the 19th ? A. Well, we are now talking 
about the 26th. Perhaps you are in trouble, sir? 

The Chairman. — I am in trouble myself. Isn't this conversa- 
tion you are talking about the conversation that took place in the 
Senate Chamber or the restaurant on the day that Mr. Kendall 
came up to speak on the Stock Exchange incorporation bills. 

Mr. Wilson. — Yes, sir. 

The Witness. — Yes, sir, absolutely. 

The Chairman. — That was February 26th. It was not the 
19th. 

The Witness. — That is what I say. 

Mr. Wilson. — I am not to blame for the confusion in the dates. 



182 

Q. Didn't he say to yon — I am asking you if yon liacl not 
been informed by the Senator that Mr. Lewis was an expert and 
a proper person to draw such a bill, and didn't he so inform yon 
on the 26th — that is my question and he answers it '' Why, no, 
that was on the 19th ?" A. 'No, yon are putting in more conversa- 
tion than we had and I object to your testifying for me. 

The Chairman. — Let me ask yon a question. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Did you ever meet Mr. Lewis prior to the 2Gth of Febru- 
ary, 1913? A. ;N^o, sir, positively. 

Q. Did you ever have any conversation with him before that 
day? A. No, sir, positively. 

Q. The only time you met him was on the 26th and not the 
19th? A. That is correct. 

Mr. Wilson. — And he says in addition to that that the only 
mention of Mr. Lev/is' name was that Senator Stilwell said he 
might send the check to a man by the name of Lewis. 

The Witness. — May it please the Court, everybody has heard 
this man stop me from telling the conversation that Mr. Stil- 
well — The Chairman. — Just a moment. We understand that 
we will get it all right. 

Mr. Wilson. — You were getting along nicely. Won't you re- 
peat what he said about — 

The Chairman. — On the 19th of February that was the day 
that you state you talked with Senator Stilwell in the corridor 
outside of the Committee on Codes room ? 

The Witness. — Yes, sir, that is my recollection. 

Q. Was Mr. Lewis' name mentioned by Senator Stilwell on that 
day? 

The AVitness. — Yes, sir, but he didn't do as he said. 

The Chairman. — No- ; his name was mentioned ? 

The Witness. — His name was mentioned. 

The Chairman. — You didn't meet Mr. Lewis on the 19th ? 

The Witness — No, sir. 



183 

Senator McClelland. — I ask for information. Do I under- 
stand that statement was made by counsel for Senator Stilwell 
as an assertion of what they contemplate proving ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Yes, sir, and what we shall prove, and I am go- 
ing to prove it as far as I can by this man on the stand. 

The Chairman. — It is not essential to the record? 

Mr. Wilson. — 'No. 

The Chairman. — That may be stricken from the record. 

Q. What was the first thing that Mr. Lewis said to you? Let 
me refresh your recollection ? Did Senator Stilwell say to you, 
^' I am very busy. Here is the young man I got to draw your 
bill for you." Didn't he say that ? A. I don't think so, sir, no. 

Q. Will you swear that he did not ? A. Yes, I will swear 
to it. 

Q. Then did Mr. Lewis present to you a bill, take one out of his 
pocket and say, " Here is a bill that I have drawn." Y^ou have 
just said that you thought it v/as Mr. Lewis instead of the 
Senator 'i A. I am trying to think of the dates of the printed bill 
and the written bills. 

Q. This is not a printed bill. A. I was going to tell you that 
I do not believe the bill was printed at that time. 

Q. No, it was not. 

The Chairman. — It is admitted there was no bill printed at 
that date. 

The Witness. — x\ll right, that being so, my recollection is that 
Field produced our drafts. Wanted Senator Stilwell to look 
over them, and that he referred the matter to Lewis. Can I now 
say what Senator Stilwell said ? 

Q. Y^'es, you may. A. I cannot go ahead otherwise, it makes it 
all mixed. ' . ' 

The Chairman. — Tell what he said. 

The Witness. — There was very little there. It did not amount 
to anything. Senator Stilwell asked me to go with Mr. Lewis to 
his room and collaborate on the making of a new bill. My recol- 
lection is it was not printed at that time, of drafting the bill, and 
I said, no, if I am to speak on your matter here of the incorpora- 
tion, I want to stay and hear what Mr. Ylilburn says, but Mr. 



184 

Field can go, as he has done lots of work on it. He says you can 
go over the points over there. There was nothing more to the 
conversation than that. That is my recollection. 

Q. What time of day was that ? A. Ahout 2 :30 in the after- 
noon, I should say. 

Q. AVell now, the Legislature had not adjourned, had it? A. 
My recollection is that — you mean the Legislature or the Senate ? 

Q. There was no committee in session, was there ? A. At 2 : 30 ? 

Q. Yes. A. 'No, but there was one due; the hour was 2:30. 

Q. Let me see if I cannot get you right ? A. You don't need 
trouble to get me right. 

Q. I have trouble in getting you right. A. You have trouble 
in getting yourself right. 

Q. Hadn't you been to lunch before that interview with the 
Senator occurred ? A. Yes, that is my recollection. 

Q. And hadn't you seen the Senator and Lewis before you went 
to lunch? A. I don't think so, sir. 

Q. You may have forgotten — A. It is possible that that 
introduction may have taken place before the lunch, but I don't 
think so, sir. It was in the Senate chamber and the Committee 
did not convene on time, but waited for Mr. Milburn. 

Q. If there is anything that will help Senator Stilwell, you 
would be glad to help him, wouldn't you? A. Anything. I 
would be delighted to do an honest day's work for him. 

Q. You came to the rail while the Senate was in session, 
Senator Stilwell stepped over to the rail, shook hands with you 
and introduced you to Mr. Lewis ? A. Oh, no, that is not true. 

Q. All right, if you say it is not true. A. That was at half-past 
eleven, and he did not introduce him to me; he stepped to the 
rail and shook hands with me; he stepped to the rail first to 
shake hands with another man, and invited me in. Mr. Lewis 
w^as not present. The Senator's recollection is wrong. 

Q. Was Lewis present at lunch with you? A. No. 

Q. Very well. Then, as you recall it, it is as you have stated 
here?' A. The Senator and I lunched alone that day. 

Q. I am not going over it again. You had this interview. 
Lewis produced a draft of the bill you favored, he said that 
Field was more familiar with the matter than you? A. No, I 
did not say so. I said I wanted to stay and listen to Mr. Mil- 
burn's argument, if I had to speak. 

Q. You doi not recollect — A. Don't tell me what I recollect. 



185 

Q. Of going away, and that jon again met in the afternoon — 
of them going away ? A. Yes. 

Q. They came back with the bill, did they ? A. Yes, and Mr. 
Field submitted it to me. 

Q. Did Mr. Lewis and Mr. Field come back with a draft of 
a bill that you said w^as satisfactory ? A. Stating it just a little 
differently, that is right, immaterially different. 

Q. Just let us get it a little different and then we will have 
it right. Go ahead. A. Mr. Field came back, and I think that 
Mr. Lewis was with him. I think they parted company some 
time while walking across the Senate Chamber, and Mr. Field 
reached me alone. 

Q. Then Mr. Field, in collaboration with Mr. Lewis pro- 
duced a bill that Mr. Field brought back, and which was satis- 
factory to 3^ou? A. I cannot say that it w^as satisfactory, but 
the best bill jet 

Q. That was the best one you got out so far? A. In my 
opinion. 

Q. That was the sixth try at it ? A. ^o, I don't know. 

Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Lewis ? A. I 
do not recollect anything more than meeting him and shaking 
hands. It was very brief. 

Q. What was the day that you sent Lewis the check; this was 
on the 27th, what w^as the date of the check? A. I don't know 
whether it was the 21st or not. I think I ought to be allowed 
to look at that check. 

Q. Well, then, on February 2Yth, is that the date ? (handing 
document to witness). A. Yes, I think that's right, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. — I will ask as a particular favor to us, that you 
gentlemen follow these dates, because I regard them as exceed- 
ingly important. 

Q. Then, on the day Mr. Lewis drew this bill and delivered 
it to you, to your satisfaction, you didn't object? A. Don't put in 
to my satisfaction. If you want to testify take the stand. 

Q. They heard it. You said it w^as the most satisfactory of 
anything you had ? A. The best yet, but not satisfactory. 

Q. Very well. It had become satisfactory to Mr. Field? A. 
'No, I don't think so. I think it Avas submitted to me for the 
purpose of helping it further, if I could. 

Q. Very well. JSTow, had Mr. Lewis said to you, that he — 
had Senator Stilwell told you that he would introduce the bill? 



186 

A. Will you give me the bill as it was introduced. I am sure 
that he had, but it was an earlier date. I think it was on the 
19th. 

Q. There had been no bill introduced until then, had there, 
and none presented ? A. ^^s'o, but you asked me if he vv^ould. That 
is future tense again. 

Q. Why, Mr. Kendall, don't you know that after Mr. Lewis 
had prepared this bill, he had the stenographer make Rye copies 
of it, delivered to you a copy of it, Mr. Field a copy of it, and 
Mr. Stilwell a copy and kept a copy himself? A. I think that 
is absolutely true, sir. 

Q. You think that is absolutely true? A. I think that's 
correct. 

Q. Well, thank you. Then, did you ask him if, when the bill 
was introduced and printed, he would send you copies of it ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That whole transaction was v/ith Mr. Lewis, wasn't it? 
What did Mr. Lewis say to you on that subject ? A. I think that 
what you are speaking of now occurred very much later — about 
seven o'clock at night, and that I asked Mr. Field to ask Mr. 
Lewis to send them at the recess of this hearing. That is when 
I think it occurred. !N'ot at that time. 

Q. Then, did you have an interview with Mr. Lewis after 
he delivered to you a typewritten copy of the proposed bill that 
night in the restaurant ? A. You are trying to manufacture 
some evidence. I had my dinner that night at the Ten Eyck. 

Q. ^0, I am not. A. You asked me when I had my lunch 
with Lewis. 

Q. Have you got delusions of persecution? 

The Chairman. — 'Now let us get back to the question. 

Q. Why do you think I am trying to manufacture evidence? 
A. I do, because of the words you say. 
Q. Why are you suspicious of me? 

The Chairman. — We will go along all day on this line, if we 
continue. What is the question you want answered, counselor ? 

Mr. Wilson. — I want to know if he had an interview with 
Mr. Lewis, later in the afternoon or evening of the 26th, in which 
he promised him that as soon as the bill was introduced and 
printed that he would send him copies of it. 

The Chairman. — !N"ow, can you answer that ? 



187 

The Witness. — I have answered that I made such a request 
by Mr. Field of Mr. Lewis, not in person. I have already so 
stated. 

Q. Then I asked you did Mr. Lewis promise you or Mr. Field 
that he would do that ? A. I have no doubt that he did. 

Q. 'Now, did you sit in the restaurant with Mr. Lewis ? Did 
you ? A. Kindly give a date. 

Q. On the 26th ? A. Xot that I am aware of. 

Q. Very well. Xow let me see if I can refresh your recollec- 
tion. Do you recall that you, Mr. Field and Mr. Stilwell entered 
the restaurant. That Mr. Lewis was sitting at the table and you 
went over to this table where he sat ? A. I remember every word 
you say being true, except that it was not that day. 

Q. It was not on the 26th ? A. No. 

The Chairman. — Counselor, we are going to take a recess. 
Shall we wait until 1 o'clock ? Are you going to continue with 
this witness for some time yet ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Just enough to straighten out these dates is all, 
which will take probably half an hour or an hour. 

The Chairman. — We had better adjourn until 2 o'clock. 

Whereupon an adjournment was taken till 2 o'clock p. m. of 
the same day. 



AFTEE EECESS. 

The Chairman. — The sergeant-at-arms will see that smoking 
ceases in the room. The Committee is ready to proceed. 

Geor2:e H. Kendall resumes the stand. 



te" 



Cross-examination by Mr. Wilson: 

Q. Do you recall, Mr. Kendall, just what you were saying 
when we adjourned ? A. No. 

Mr. Wilson. — I will ask the stenographer to read to Mr. 
Kendall so that we may know just w^here we were. 

The stenographer thereupon read the following to the witness 
and the Committee: 

" Q. Now, did you sit in the restaurant with Mr. Lewis ? 
Did you ? A. Kindly give a date. 



188 

'' Q. On the 26tli. A. ISTot that I am aware of. 

'^ Q. Very well. Kow let me see if I can refresh your recol- 
lection. Do you recall that you, Mr. Field and Mr. Stilwell 
entered the restaurant; that Mr. Lewis was sitting at the table, 
and that you went over to this table where he sat? A. I re- 
member every word you say being true, except that it was not 
that day. 

'' Q. It was not on the 26th? A. K'o." 

Q. You now have in your mind clearly where we were? 
A. I think so, sir. 

Q. Was there an occasion when you and Mr. Stilwell and 
Lewis and Field sat at the table in the restaurant? A. Of this 
Capitol ? Yes, sir. 

Q. When was that? A. March 19th, 1913, the day I spoke on 
my o^\m bill before the Committee on Codes. 

Q. And you still are sure that that conversation did not occur 
until after you had sent Mr. Lewis the check. I do not want 
any confusion about it if I can help it ? A. My recollection is 
that the date of the check — let me see that check, then I can 
testify. 

Q. We went all over that before we adjoured ? A. I never 
made any memorandum of these dates. It is pretty difficult to 
remember — (examining check) — the date of the check is Febru- 
ary 27th. The date w^hen we all lunched together, that is Senator 
Stilwell, Mr. Field and mj^self and Mr. Lewis, in this Capitol, 
was the 19th day of March. If that does not answer your ques- 
tion, if you kindly will let me know I v/ill try and answer it for 
you. 

Q. Do you think you are right now ? A. I do. 

Q. Well, in any event, you are sure that it was not February 
19th? Yes, sir; I had not met Mr. Lewis on February 19th, I 
believe. I am sure. It was February 26th, that I met Mr. 
Lewis. 

Q. 'Now, I want to ask you this; and so that you may get a 
somewhat complete statement. Did you, on the 26th day of 
February, 1913, meet Mr. Stilwell in the Senate chamber and did 
he introduce you to Mr. Lewis ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you informed by Senator Stilwell that Mr. Lewis was 
the one who drew the bill, and did Senator Stilwell suggest that 
you and Lewis go over the bill ? A. The answer to the two ques- 
tions : yes and he did. 



189 

Q. Just answer my question. A. You have got two questions 
in there. The answer to the first is yes, and he did. 

Q. Did you then introduce Mr. Lewis to Mr. G. A. Field, and 
state to him that Mr. Field was your cousin ? A. I did not. 

Q. Did you introduce Mr. G. A. Field to Mr. Lewis as your 
cousin? A. I did not. Senator Stilwell introduced us both at 
the same time. 

Q. I am asking you these questions for the purpose of contra- 
dicting you if you do not agree with us ? A. All right, I thought 
you wanted the truth. 

Q. Did you state to Mr. Lewis that the Committee was about 
to go into session and that you were anxious to remain in the room 
to witness the proceedings, and that Mr. Field was fully as con- 
versant with the matter as you were, and that Mr. Field had full 
authority to act for you in his stead? A. I do not recollect so 
doing, sir. 

Q. Did you state that either directly to Mr. Lewis himself or 
in his presence when Mr. Field and Senator Stilwell or either one 
of them was in your presence ? A. I do not recollect so, sir. 

Q. Did Mr. Field and Mr. Lewis then leave the Senate Cham- 
ber ? A. You will have to omit the word ^' then " to make it 
possible for me to answer. 

Q. You may say yes, or no, or that you don't know? A. It 
is not either one. I cannot answer the question in that form. 
They left the Senate Chamber, but they did not leave it after any 
such conversation as that, because the conversation did not occur. 

Attorney-General. — I move to strike out his answer. 

The Chairman. — It don't amount to much. 

Mr. Wilson. — It amounts to the very essence of our case. I 
am now propounding to him certain questions for the purpose 
of contradicting him. 

The Chairman. — Motion granted, strike it out. 

Q. Did Mr. Field and Mr. Lewis leave the room where you 
had the conversation ? A. They did. I saw them. 

Q. Do you know where they went ? A. I knov/ the direction, 
which is diagonally across the Senate Chamber. 

Q. Now were they gone a considerable period of time ? A. I 
think in the vicinity of two hours — one to two hours. 



190 

Q. 'Now, after that, did you, Senator Stilwell and Mr. Field 
enter the Capitol dining room ? A. No, sir ; but we did before 
that. 

Mr. Wilson. — I did not ask yon that and I move to strike it 
out. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out. 

The Witness. — After that we did not. My answer is no then. 

Q. Very well. Was Mr. Lewis — A. Oh, wait a moment. 
I think as the question stands, the answer is no. 

The Chairman. — All right. 

Q. Well, did you and Senator Stilwell and Mr. Field meet in 
the Capitol dining room, after Field and Lewis had been away 
for some time ? A. No, before. 

Mr. Wilson. — I did not ask you that and I move to strike it 
out. 

The Witness. — Well, no. All right, no. Wait a minute. 
Let me understand this thing. 

The Chairman. — Witness, don't answer a question until we 
thoroughly understand it because we are wasting time the way 
it is. Read the question. 

Question read: 

" Q. Well, did you and Senator Stilwell and Mr. Field meet 
in the Capitol dining room after Field and Lewis had been away 
for some time ?'' 

Mr. Wilson. — After the bill had been ^Drepared. 

The Chairman. — Do you understand the question ? A. Yes, 
as stated, the answer is no. 

Q. Well, is there some slight imperfection in the statement? 
Is the question as I read it to you substantially as the fact oc- 
curred ? A. IS^o. 

Q. Well, all right, then. Did Mr. Lewis invite you and Field, 
or Stilwell, or any of you, to join him at the table? A. You are 
speaking about the 2'6th, aren't you ? 

Q. Yes, sir. A. I^o, absolutely, no. 

Q. Did you seat yourself at the table at the right of Mr. 
Lewis, with Mr. Field at the left, and Senator Stilwell directly 



191 

opposite Mr. Lewis? A. This all relates to the 26th of 
February ? 

Q. Yes. A. I<o. 

Q. Did joii at that time and upon that occasion, and on that 
date, February 26th, enter into a discussion of the bill and of 
its merits ? A. With Mr. Lewis present ? 

Q. Yes, sir. A. 'No, sir. 

Q. Did you remark — A. All of this is spoken of as of the 
restaurant, is it? 

Q. Yes, sir. A. This is an inter\dew supposed to have taken 
place in the restaurant here on the 26th day of February, 1913. 

Q. Did you say to Mr. Lewis, in the presence of Senator Stil- 
well, that you had told the Senator that you would pay $250 for 
drawing the bill ? A. Oh, no. 

Q'. What is that? A. No. 

Q. You did not. Did Mr. Lewis say to you that if that was 
agreed to by Senator Stilwell, it was perfectly satisfactory to 
him? A. ;N"o, sir. 

Q. Did Senator Stilwell say in your presence and in the pres- 
ence of Mr. Lewis, that he wanted none of it; that it would all 
go to him — saying that to Mr. Lewis ? A. No, sir. 

Q. That he was doing the work, and that he would be entitled 
to the fee ? A. That he, Lewis ? ^o ; no such conversation ever 
occurred. 

Q. Well, if you say no, that w^ill be sufficient? A. IN'o. 

Q. Did you say to Mr. Lewds, having the bill that Mr. Field 
had perfected, or that they had there, a copy of whicli you had, 
that you were very highly pleased wdth the bill and that you 
thought the fee was a reasonable one? A. ^N'o. 

Q. You had the bill in your pocket, didn't you? A. I^ot at 
any lunch time, it was on towards dark. 

Q. What is that? ^ot at any lunch time. It was on, it was 
on towards dark. 

Q. Well, is that the way you are getting out of it? A. I am 
not getting out of it. You know you are making up something 
that never existed. Now, don't charge me w^ith trying to get 
out of anything, I don't have to. 

The Chairman. — If we are going to keep right along this line, 
we won't get out of here for two weeks. 



192 

Q. l^ow, you say it was not at luncli time, but in the evening 
that this occurred ? A. It was not at lunch time. 

Q. At any time? A. I never met Lewis till half -past two to 
three o'clock, after I had had my lunch, and everybody had had 
their lunch, on the 25th day of February, 1913. 

Q. ISTow, I am asking you if you met him after that, and in 
the Capitol dining room? A. J^ot in the Capitol dining room, 
no. 

Q. Where you ate. What do you call it, lunch, or what you 
,call it. I ask you again, did you say to him that it certainly was 
a reasonable fee, and that you felt highly pleased and wanted to 
thank him for the splendid attention he had given the matter? 
A. 'No, sir. 

Q. You did not say that ? A. Hadn't met him until after lunch. 

Q. Did you say to Mr. Lewis : " I suppose you prefer to re- 
ceive this money in cash ?" A. No. 

Q. Did Mr. Lewis say to you, " I have no preference in the 
matter whatever;" that you could send a check to his order? A. 
^0, sir; no such conversation as this ever took place. 

Q. It is sufficient to say that wasn't so. Did Mr. Lewis say to 
you that you could send the check to his order and that he would 
send a receipt therefor ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you say to him, '' I am very glad to hear that, because 
I haven't quite got that amount of cash with me," or that in sub- 
stance ? A. No; sir. 

Q. Did you say to him you would be pleased to send your check 
to him upon your return to I^ew York ? A. ^o, sir. 

Q. Did Mr. Lewis then hand to you — A. Omit the word 
" then," please. 

Q. Well, did he hand to you on the 26th, and after that con- 
versation, a printed visiting card such as I now show you, writing 
his Albany address on that ? A. Omit " after that conversation," 
and I can answer. Otherwise I don't know how. There was no 
such conversation. If you omit the " after the conversation," I 
can answer. 

Q. Well, I ask you on that day did he hand to you a visiting 
card such as I now exhibit to you, with his Albany address on it ? 
A. As I have previously testified — 

Q. Answer that. A. As I have previously testified, I think I 
saw him hand this card to Mr. Field. 



193 

Mr. Wilson. — I decline to take it, and move to strike it out. 

The Chairman. — Read the question. 

Question read. 

'^ Q. Well, I ask if on that day he handed to you a visiting card, 
such as I now exhibit to jou, with his Albany address on it." 

The Chairman. — The witness will answer the question as he 
finds it. If you can answer it do so; if you can not answer it, 
just say so. 

The Witness. — I will ask to have that question read to me. 

(The question was read.) 

The Witness. — To the best of my recollection, no. 

Q. Did he hand you a card at all ? A. To the best of my 
recollection, no. 

Q. Did he hand you a card having in addition to what appears 
on the one that I show you — just what is that? 

Mr. Lewis. — Senate Revision Clerk. 

Q. Senate Revision clerk. A. To the best of my recollecticn, 
no. 

Q. Did he hand to Mr. Field in your presence another card 
with his office address in ^ew York on that card? A. You 
will have to omit the word '' another " or I am not competent 
to answer the question. 

Q. Very well. Did he hand Mr. Field a card with his 'New 
York address on it? A. Omit the " J^ew York address." I did 
not read the card. I did not read it and I did not see what is on 
the card. To the best of my recollection I saw him hand Mr. 
Field a card. I did not read the card and don't know what was 
on it. 

Q. On the next morning after the 26th, or on the 27th, you 
say you drew a check. Is that right ? A. My company did. 

Q. Did you address it to (reading) Samuel Lewis, Clerk of 
the Senate Revision Committee — 

Mr. Lewis. — No, Mr. 

Mr. Wilson. — Well, what it is? 

Mr. Lewis. — Senate Revision Clerk. 

Q. Senate Revision Clerk, Albany, !N'ew York. A. I gave an 



194 

address whicti I presume was similar to that which I now forget 
the exact wording of. 

Q. What address did jou put on the envelope ? A. I dictated 
probably ^^ Senate " something. I do not remember what it 
might have been — Senate Revision Clerk. 

Q. Well, where did you get the address ? A. I think Mr. 
Stilwell told me his address. 

Q. When? A. That day and some days previous. 

Q. Did you write it down? A. I do not remember, probably 
I did. 

Q. E'ow, are you aware that you have sworn that, in an inter- 
view you have stated that you gave the exact address that he put 
on the card, excepting you omitted to leave off J-r-, Junior ? A. 
Whether I have so testified or not I speak the facts now as I 
recollect them. 

Q. Well, did you leave off from your check the word Jr ? A. 
It would appear that I did. I never read the check. I never 
signed the check. 

Q. All right. A. I merely ask that a check be sent. I have 
never seen it until after it came back. I never saw the check; 
before or after. 

Q. Did you have his office address ? A. I may have. I don't 
recollect. 

Q. Did you call him up at his office before you saw him again ? 
A. Call him up on the telephone ? 

Q. Yes. A. Fix those dates will you. I never called him up 
on the telephone in my life. 

Q. What is that? A. I never called Mr. Lewis on the tele- 
phone in my life. 

Q. Did Field at your request ? A. Never at my request. 

Q. Did you ever have any interview with Mr. Lewis excepting 
on that occasion of the 26th? A. Yes, sir. 

Q, What is that ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When? A. March 19th. 

Q. What is that? A. March 19th I lunched with him. 

Q. On March 19th ? A. Yes, Mr. Field, myself and Senator 
Stilwell all lunched together March 19th. The first, last and only 
time, 

Q. ISTow, on the 22nd after the alleged conversation in the 
restaurant which you say you didn't have — 

The Chairman. — The 26th, you mean? 



195 

The Witness. — ^N^O; which I saj I didn't have of a certain date 
or which the details as set forth by you. 

Q. Or any time on the 26th? A. I had a conversation with 
him on March 19th in the restaurant. 

Q. I am not asking you about the 19th, sir. Did you say to 
]\lr. Lewis this in substance, '* When will the bill be introduced 
and when will we have copies of it?" on the 26th? A. I rather 
think — 

Q. You denied you had any conversation ? A. I beg your 
pardon. I did not recollect, ^ow you speak of that it seems to 
me after he came back with Field I had a talk and did ask him 
that. It was dark and I was v/aiting there. It seems to me I did 
ask him that same thing. I think that is true. JSTow we are 
speaking of the 26th of — 

Q. February. A. February. 

Q. Did he inform you that it would be introduced at the 
opening of the session on the following day, Thursday? A. He 
did not. 

Q. And that printed copies would be back in the Senate Cham- 
ber the following Monday night and he would send you copies of 
the printed bill at that time? A. If you chop that up in three 
questions it will take three kinds of answers. 

Q. Well, answer it. A. Repeat that question please. 

The stenographer read the question as follows : '^ Did he in- 
form you that it would be introduced at the opening of the 
session on the following day, Thursday ? A. He did." 

The Witness. — The answer is yes. 

^'And that printed copies would be back in the Senate Chamber 
the following Monday night ? " 

The Witness. — ^NTo. 

" And he would send you copies of the printed bill at that 
time ? " 

The Witness. — Omittino- '' at that time " the answer is ves. 



Q. What is that ? A. I think he said that he would send me 
copies of the bill when printed, l^o " at that time." 

Q. That he would send you printed copies? A. Yes, I think 
he said that. 

Q. Did you see any difference between saying he would send 



196 

printed copies at that time and telling you tie would send one 
when printed? A. I certainly do because they never said it 
would be introduced Monday morning, or any place. I Avas the 
most surprised man when I learned that it had been done by 
noon the next day. I remember my surprise very well. I did 
not see how between the time of my speaking about those bills 
that night and 1 1 o'clock they could be printed and introduced in 
the houses. I was astonished. I remember it perfectly well. 
Q. You remember what? 

Mr. Wilson. — I move to strike out what he said. I am asking 
one thing and he is telling me another. 

The Chairman. — I don't know — it is all along the same line. 
Overruled. 

Mr. Wilson. — Very well. 

Q. Was the bill introduced the next day? A. I have heard 
it was, yes, sir. 

Q. You had it, didn't you ? A. Yes, sir. I had not seen it. 
I went home that night. I could not have. I went home at 1 
o'clock at night. 

Mr. Wilson. — Mark this please. 

Papers received and marked Defendant's Exhibit 5 for identi- 
fication of this date. 

Q. I show you Defendant's Exhibit 5, being headed " State 
of E"ew York, l^o. 1188. Int. 1041." That means the intro- 
ductory number; dated February 27, 1913. Is that your bill? 
A. This is Senate bill 1188, and relates to the bank note situa- 
tion; the Stock Exchange bank note situation. 

Q. That is what you have been pleased to call your bill? A. 
Oh, yes. To avoid discussion, I will say yes. I don't like the 
the form of the question. I don't think I have mentioned any- 
thing as my bill. I don't think I have used that phrase. I have 
been very careful not to. 

Q. This is the bill at any rate ? A. This is the bill. 

Q. Is that a printed copy, the same as the typewritten copy that 
Mr. Lewis delivered to you on the 26th day of Eebruary, 1913 ? 
A. I don't know. 

Q. Is there any way that you can find out ? A. 'No, because I 
did not read the typewritten bill. 



197 

Q. The bill that Lewis gave you and you pronounced satis- 
factory, you say you never read? A. You have repeated that 
thing here until I am tired. There is no bill that I pronounced 
satisfactory, and it is in this evidence over and over and over 
again. 

Q. What do you say you said, when you read it? A. After 
Field and Lewis handed it back, you said it was the most satis- 
factory of anything you had seen up to that time ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How did you know it was, if you had not read it ? A. Field 
had been over the matter and told me about it. I may have read 
that. I don't know, but I don't remember now of doing it. 

Q. Then wh}^ did you swear you did not ? A. I don't think I 
did. I think Field had all to with it, and I was doing nothing 
but watching and listening to the arguments on the incorporation 
bill, of Mr. Milburn and Taylor and all those people. I think I 
remember Mr. Field coming in with a typewritten bill and saying 
that it was far the best yet. 

(}. Do you recall that jou testified once in this case that the 
bill that was before the Joint Committee did not interest you, 
that it was your own bill that you were interested in. A. That 
requires explanation. I am interested in the incorporation bill. 

Q. You need not explain. Do you recall testifying to it ? A. 
Yes, and I ask that my explanation at that time may be read, that 
the record may be read. 

Q. If it is in the record, it is not necessary to read it. It won't 
help you any. Xow, then, if yen did not read the bill Lewis 
handed you, but relied upon what Field said to you, is the bill 
as Field told you it was ? A. I don't know. I don't know 
whether I actually read that bill or not. I am willing to admit 
it, so you can have the benefit either way. 

Q. You may take it either way you are a mind to. 

Q. Did you receive a copy of that printed bill? A. Of a 
printed bill, I did. 

Q. I oifer this bill in evidence now. 

Exhibit 5 for identification was received in evidence and 
marked, Exhibit 5. 

Q. Well, was it that precise bill ? A. I don't know, as I have 
not compared it. 

Q. Do you think you could tell if you compared it ? A. I cer- 
tainlv could. 



198 

Q. What did you do with the one that was sent to you ? A, I 
don't know, but it is very probably in this room; Mr. Field had 
it; it is there, probably. 

Q. You think probably that Mr. Field has that bill? A. I 
think probably. 

Q. Will you ask him ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Mr. Field, have you the bill that was sent to 
Mr. Kendall by Mr. Lewis ? 

The Witness. — That is my question to you, Mr. Field. 

Mr. Field. — ^He sent several copies. I think I have at least 
one of them. Some of them have been used. Some of them are 
at the office. 

Q. Now, won't you tell this Committee when you first got the 
printed bill to examine it ? A. I don't remember, sir, but it was 
probably the 27th or 28th or 29th — oh, yes, I think I can. I 
cannot tell you exactly. You have asked a question, sir. I will 
answer it. 

Q. Certainly it. A. Mr. Attorney-General, will you kindly let 
me see that letter of Lewis' in which he encloses me these bills 
(letter handed to witness). Is that the letter? A. I received 
those bills March 4th. 

Q. Is that the letter in which the bills were enclosed ? A. It 
is, sir. 

Q. Well, then, Lewis done just as he told you he would, didn't 
he? A. As far as sending the bills. 

Mr. Wilson. — I will read the letter, 

'' Albany, March Zrd, 1913. 
" Me. George H. Kendall, 

'^ Dear Sir. — Enclosed please find printed copy Senate Bill 
1188. Of course it has not been introduced in the Assembly. If 
you wish this done, please advise me, and I will attend to same. 
I might mention that I have not yet received your check for 
$250, as agreed. If you wish anything further in regard to this 
bill, please let me know. 

'' Yours truly, 

'' SAMUEL LEWIS, Jr." 

Q. That is the letter that contained the printed copy? A. 
Yes, sir, printed copies ; I think there were several. 



199 

Q. Now do YOU say that as early as February 27th, you had 
mailed to Mr. Lewis a check for $250, being the check that has 
been put in evidence ? A. I do. 

Q. Can you explain how it happened that it did not reach 
Albany ? A. If you will make the change from ''Albany " to 
'' Mr. Lewis," I will answer the question. I can explain how 
the check did not reach Mr. Lewis. 

Q. Very well. A. Shall I do so ? 

Q. Not just at present. I will let you go into that a little later. 
Now, before Mr. Lewis wrote you this letter of March 3rd, had 
you called him up by telephone and talked with him ? A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Had you told him on Saturday, March 1st, or asked him if 
he had received his check, and did he reph^ he had not ; and 
did 3^ou tell him that you had mailed it to him at Albany? A. 
What happened was he called us up on the telephone, saying he 
was — 

Q. No, you stay right where you are this time. A. I will do 
so with pleasure. 

Q. Did you call him up on the telephone ? A. I never called 
up Mr. Lewis by telephone. • 

Q. That answers that. A. It has been answered before pre- 
cisely in those words. 

Q. Did you tell him over the telephone that you had mailed 
him a check, or did you ask him if he had received his check? 
A. I never talked with Mr. Lewis over the telephone in my life. 

Q. Did you talk to him in your office ? A. He has never been 
in my office at any time when I was present. 

Q. Did you talk to him in his office ? A. I have never been 
in his office. 

Q. How did you inform him that you had mailed him the 
check? A. By letter. 

Q. Oh, I may be — A. Oh, you may be. That is about all 
you can be. 

Q. You are sure you had no talk with him in New York by 
telephone? A. I have answered that several times. I do not 
think it right to grind me on these details. 

The Chairman. — He has answered that. 

Q. But you had no communication with him in any shape, 
form or manner concerning the check from February 2Yth, down 
to March 4th? A. And you have the letter in vour hands, and 



200 

I have put jou onto the letter which you did not know anything 
about, and you have the gall to talk to me that way. 

The Chairman. — Kever mind, witness. Just answer the 
questions and you will get along a good deal faster. 

Q. Well, you did write him that you had mailed his check 
February 27th ? A. I did ; or the office did. 

Q. Did you write him another letter ? A. In response to his, 
yes, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. — Will you let me take that ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — What is the date of it ? 

Mr. Wilson. — March 7th. These letters are all in evidence. 

The Chairman. — Yes, they are all in evidence. 

Mr. Wilson. — The letter, if it is in evidence, is in the evi- 
dence. 

Q. Did you write another letter to Mr. Lewis, asking him to 
employ a stenographer to attend the hearing on the 19th; that 
you would pay for the stenographer ? Did you write such a 
letter ? A. Mr. Field wrote such a letter. 

Q. Well, under your direction ? A. With my approval, either 
to Mr. Stilwell or to Mr. Lewis. My recollection is the letter was 
to Mr. Stilwell. 

Mr. Wilson. — I did not ask him that. I asked him if he 
wrote a letter? 

The Chairman. — He answered you that he did not ; that Mr. 
Field wrote one. 

Q. Did you sign it? A. I think Mr. Field signed such a 
letter. 

Mr. Wilson. — Have you got that letter, Mr. Field ? 

Mr. Field. — I don't remember myself whether it was signed 
by me or not, as the copy book does not show. 

Q. Such a letter was written? A. Yes, to engage a stenog- 
rapher, but that was for the 19th, man, not what you are talking 
about at all. 

Q. I understand. You have got down to March 7th, or I have. 
Now I want to go back and ask you if that (handing to witness) 
is the bill that you had in your possession and being precisely the 



201 

same bill that I have introduced here in evidence? A. Well, I- 
haven't had an opportunity to compare. I have no doubt of it. 
Yes, here (indicating) that's my handwriting, sir. Help your- 
self. 

Q. Is that so ? Well then, that is the very bill that Lewis sent 
to you, is that right? A. I think it must be, sir. 

Q. Well now, if you are so anxious to compare them won't you 
see if they are precisely the same bills? (Witness compared 
bills.) A. I have no doubt they are, sir. 

Q. Xow w^hat did you write into it? A. After the words — 
after the usual listing requirements have been complied with, in 
my handwr'iting appears — 

Q. What line? A. Line 11, page 2 " to be recovered in a civil 
action by any party aggrieved." That was my suggestion. That 
is in my handwriting. 

Q. Then you wanted the bill changed, so instead of it being a 
public bill as an amendment to the Penal Code, that it would 
give you a right of action against the Stock Exchange or its 
members, so that you might recover the penalty of a thousand 
dollars a day? A. Without knowing the exact legal phrases and 
their bearing I believe as I understand it that is correct. 

Q. Well, then, when did you write that bill into the bill that 
I show you ? A. Undoubtedly betw^een the 4th of March and the 
19th of March. I don't recollect the date. 

Q. Well then, did you make any amendments whatever or 
suggestions as to the bill that Mr. Lewis has preferred and Senator 
Stilwell had introduced, excepting the interlineation that appears 
in that ? A. I think so, sir. I think there were several of these 
— one or tv>' o more of these marked up by me. 

Q. You think you have got others marked up? A. Yes. 

Mr. Wilson. — I^ow have you got any more bills in your pos- 
session marked up by him, Mr. Field ? 

Mr. Field. — I don't think so. 

Q. Who did you deliver them to? A. I don't remember. 

Q. Did you deliver it to Mr. Lewis or send it to him? A. I 
don't remember, but I think not. I think this was given to 
Senator Stilwell. I think so, I won't be positive. 

Q. ;N'ow, having in mind that you got that bill before you 
mailed the check, did you say to Mr. Lewis that if you could 
insert a clause by which you could have a right of action against 



202 

the Stock Exchange that it woiikl be worth a large sum of money 
to yon? A. 'Not objecting to the last part at all — 
Q. Did yon say — 

The Chairman. — Did yon say it or did yon not ? A. No, I 
didn't. 

The Chairman. — That answers the question. 

Q. E'ow, what have I put in that you don't like? A. You 
have put in a falsehood, sir. Read that and I will call the words. 

(Question read) : " ISTow, having in mind that you got that bill 
before you mailed the check, did you say to Mr. Lewis — " 

The Witness. — That is enough. It clearly shows that the 
check was mailed on the 27th, and by the very documents this 
man proves here that it was sent to him on March 3d. Xow, he 
frames up that question on me. It isn't fair. 

Q. How does it clearly appear that you mailed that check on 
the 27th ? A. It was mailed and is undisputed. 

Q. It is ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How came Lewis to be writing you on the 3rd of March 
that he had not received the check? A. Because he spent his 
Friday, and his Saturday and his Sunday in New York and has 
said so to Mr. Field over the 'phones, which you stopped me 
from proving here. 

Q. The conversation then was with Field in which you said 
the check had been mailed and not with you ? A. How is that ? 

Q. The conversation was with Field in which he said the check 
had been mailed and not with you ? A. The letters are here and 
as I have stated, he has called up Mr. Field on the 'phone. 

Q. I didn't ask you that. The 'phone conversation w^as v/ith 
Field and not with you, is that right ? A. That is right if so • — • 
if he had one, I think he did. 

Q. Do you know that the correspondence shows that he mailed 
you those bills on Monday night after he got back to Albany, and 
the check had not yet arrived ? A. Oh, sure. 

Q. Well then, how does it clearly appear that the fact that he 
was in ^NTew York Friday and Saturday and Sunday was the 
reason he did not get the check ? A. I can't quite carry the days 
of the week. The check was sent in the 27th. 

Q. Did you say to him at any time that the passage of that 



203 

ail, with such a clause as you have inserted there, giving you a 
right of action against the Stock Exchange to recover the penalty, 
v^ould be worth a large sum of money to you ? A. I don't recol- 
lect so doing. 

Q. Would it have been? A. It would have been, probably, 
as it would rip open that discrimination under — 

Q. Well, you got to ripping something then ? 

Attorney-General. — I ask that that remark be stricken from 
the record. 

The Chairman. — Yes. 

Mr. Wilson. — He used it. I believe in your interview there 
you said you would rip Heaven open. Now you may mark that, 
if you will (handing a document to stenographer). 

Said document was marked Defendant's Exhibit 6 for Identi- 
fication. 

Q. I show you Defendant's Exhibit 6 for Identification (hand- 
ing to witness) and ask you what that is ? A Summons and Com- 
plaint in the matter of New York Bank Note Company against 
Eansom H. Thomas, individually and as president of the New 
York Stock Exchang'e, 1,100 members of the New York Stock 
Exchange, George W. Levy, and American Bank Note Company, 
defendants. 

Q. That is an action you brought against the 1,100 men? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. All of them members of the New York Stock Exchange? 
A. All of them, Avith the exception — 

Q. And that is your complaint ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In the Federal Court ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you bring that action ? A. Sworn to by me 
October 29th, 1910. 

Q. Are the allegations set forth — how many counts are there 
in that ? A. What is a count, sir ? 

Q. Well, diiferent claims and statements that you made. Did 
you read it over before you swore to it? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Which question is asked? 

Mr. Wilson. — I will ask him first if he read it over before he 
swore to it? 



204 

Attorney-General Carmodv. — You asked him first how many 
counts there were. 

Mr. Wilson. — I will waive that. 

Q. See if you read it ? A. Certainly, sir. 

Q. E-ead it over before you swore to it? A. Certainly. 

Q. 'Now, are all of the allegations contained in that complaint 
true, as you. understand them? A. To the best of my knowledge 
and belief. 

Q. You believed they were true at the time you made them ? 
A. I did. 

Q. Who drew that complaint for you ? A. Alvin C. Cass. 

Q. Who are the attorneys ? A. Alvin C. Cass ; Ca^s and 
Apfel. 

Q. They are attorneys in ^ew York city ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They are still your attorneys ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is an action in the Federal Court of the Southern 
District of 'New York? A. I don't know what district — any- 
thing about districts. 

Q. It states there, doesn't it ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. ^N'ow, how did you serve that summons and complamt on 
these 1,100 men? 

Mr. Lyon. — We object to this. 

The Chairman. — Sustained. 

Mr. Wilson. — I will connect it in a moment. I don't care much 
about it. 

Q. Did you serve a few of them individually and then mail 
all of the other 1,100 copies? 

Mr. Lyon. — We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant and 
immaterial. 

The Chairman. Sustained. 

Q. Did you tell Mr, Lewis that you had an action of that 
character pending? A. I think not, sir. 

Q. Will you say that you did not? A. ^o, but I am very 
strongly of the opinion that I did not. 

Q. Did you state before the Senate Comm^ittee on Codes that 
yon^ did have ? A. Have what, such an action ? 

Q. Such an action pending? A. I did. 



205 

Q. Did you state that the first time that yon went before them, 
when we have no ofiicial transcript of it? 

Mr. Lyon. — I object to the last part of it. A. I don't know 
whether you have an ofiicial transcript or not. If you will ask 
me the question separate I will answer it. 

Q. Did you also make that statement before the Joint Commit- 
tee at the hearing on the 26th? A. I did. 

Q. Was it true ? A. What statement now do you mean ? 

Q. That you had this action pending? A. Oh, absolutely, yes, 
sir, absolutely true. I absolutely made it and it was absolutely 
true. 

Q. Xow, did you tell Mr. Levvds that if you could put the bill 
through with such an amendment as you wanted — A. What, the 
incorporation bill ? 

Q. Wait a minute, l^ot the incorporation bill. You stick to 
the one you have got in your hand with your interlineation • — • 
that if you could get such a bill as that through, giving you a 
right individually to sue the Stock Exchange or the members of it, 
that it would be worth a good deal of money to you ? A. Oh, no, 
you are w^rong there. I don't think I ever said so anyway. 

Q. It would have been so ? A. ^N'ot the suit, but simply to 
allow us to do business and then my concern would be able to 
•make a lot of money. I made that statement several times to 
Mr. Stilwell. 

Q. If you wanted it so you could do business, then what did 
you write in there so you could bring an action, so that the party 
aggrieved could bring an action and himself retain the penalty? 
A. If the parties aggrieved couldn't bring an action the bill would 
be entirely toothless — be so much waste paper. 

Q. You would not think that the fact that — A. If nobody 
could have an action against him, what is the use, there is no 
penalty. 

Q. You would not think that the penalty prescribed in the bill, 
fixing a misdemeanor and a thousand dollars a day penalty; you 
would not think there would be any use of your bringing that 
kind of an action, is that it ? 

(Ko response.) 

Q. That penalty would go to the State, wouldn't it, to be re- 
covered, to be a fine? A. You have me over my depth. I do 
not know whether it would go to the State or not. How can I 
tell? 



206 

Q. Let us see. Take this first bill : '' Shall be punishable in 
the manner prescribed for misdemeanors." A. I do not know 
what the manner is. How can I answer your question ? 

Q. Perhaps no one ever intended you should. ^' And in addi- 
tion thereto shall be liable to a fine of $1,000 per day for each 
day such refusal or discrimination shall continue after the usual 
listing requirements have been complied with. A. Yes, but that 
does not say who shall prosecute. That is the point to which I 
call attention. 

Q. Anybody. The District Attorney. It would be a penalty, 
wouldn't it. A fine, it says, punishment. A. Who would pro- 
ceed against it ? 

Q. Who? A. Yes. 

Q. So they would be indicted — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — This is legal argument. 

The Chairman.- — Yes. Let us cut out this argument and get 
right down. 

Q. Then you don't understand ? A. No, I don't understand. 

Q. So you wrote in to be recoA^ered in a civil action by the 
party aggrieved ? A. Aggrieved. 

Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir, I wrote that in. 

Q. You think you would be the fellow aggrieved ? A. I thought 
I was one of them. 

Q. Did you tell Lewis in so many words, the substance of 
which was that it would be a very fine thing for him if that 
went through, because you wanted him as your lawyer? A. 
Lawyer ? 

Q. Yes, lawyer? A. Xo. He isn't a lawyer. 

Q. Who isn't a lawyer? A. He is not. If he is, it is news 
to me. He is a clerk in the Senate, that is all I know of it. 

Q. Don't you know he has been practicing law on William 
street or Broadway for eleven or twelve years ? A. It is all news 
to me. I thought he was a clerk in the Senate. 

Q. You didn't think a lawyer could be a clerk ? 

The Chairman. — Oh, well — 

The AVitness. — Well, get down, will you ? 

Mr. Wilson. — It is somewhat important concerning the activi- 
ties of Mr. Lewis. 



207 

The Chairman. — He has stated that he did not know that Mr. 
Lewis was a lawyer. 

Q. Did you tell him it would make a very fine business for 
him? A. i\o, sir. 

Q. Did you tell him that you would have a whole lot of actions 
against the Stock Exchange ? A. Iso. I did not know he was a 
lawyer. 

Q. Did you tell anybody that? A. E'o. 

Q. Did 3^ou tell him that your action, as set forth in the book 
that I show you (handing book to witness) was not Avorth a cent ? 
A. ISTo I had no conversation. I said that to Senator Stilwell; 
I said it before the Committee on Codes. 

Q. Told it to everybody ? A. Told it to everybody. It is not 
worth a cent. I let the public know. 

Mr. Wilson. — I will offer this book in evidence. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — For what purpose? 

Mr. Lyon. — We object to that as immaterial, irrelevant and 
incompetent. 

Mr. Wilson. — For the purpose of shov/ing just what there is 
about it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Objected to as immaterial. 

Q. You never saw Lewis after that until the 19 th — 

The Chairman. — Just a moment. I cannot see the pertinency of 
all this at the present time. I will deny the motion and sustain 
the objection. 

Mr. Wilson. — You will recall that after he had made this 
interlineation that then the bill came back to Senator Stilwell. 
It will appear, I think, that Mr. Lewis never saw it afterwards, 
and that Senator Stilwell then drew the pencil memorandum, as 
appears in the one that they have introduced. 

The Chairman. — You are speaking of the bill now ; not the 
book? 

Mr. Wilson. — I am speaking of the bill. 

The Chairman. — Yes. 

Mr. Wilson. — I am trying to show what his motive was for 
getting this particular bill passed, which was connected with this 



208 

very suit here concerning which he talked at considerable length 
both before the joint committee and before your Committee on 
Codes. 

Q. You know that Mr. Lewis in his conference with Mr. 
Field had advised that he did not think with the penal statute it 
would be best to insert such a provision ? A. Mr. Stilwell said 
that. 

Q. Mr. Stilwell said that. Well, did Mr. — A. In fact 
I think Mr. Lewis told me — Mr. Lewis said that to Mr. Field, 
and Mr. Field is here. 

Q. Notwithstanding that you wrote it and insisted on its going 
in the bill ? A. My recollection is that was written in New York 
and sent up here. 

Q. As you got the bill through the Assembly yesterday it con- 
tains that clause in it? A. I haven't the slightest idea. I have 
not seen any proceedings that went through yesterday. 

Q. On March 15th, 1913, did you cause this letter to be writ- 
ten to Mr. Samuel Lev/is, Revision Clerk, Albany, New York. 

^' Dear Sir:— 

" Mr. Kendall washes to have a competent stenographer who can 
take down his remarks before the Senate Codes Committee next 
Wednesday, and possibly one or two others. These he should 
want written out. If you can get some one who will do this for 
$25, we will be glad to have you do so. If you cannot, please let 
us know by wire early Tuesday." 

A. What is your question ? 

The Chairman. — Read the question. 

Question read: 

^' Q. On March 15th, 1913. did you cause this letter to be written 
to Mr. Samuel Lewis, Revision Clerk, Albany, New York ? 

" Dear Sir:— 

'' Mr. Kendall wishes to have a competent stenographer who 
can take down his remarks before the Senate Codes Committee 
next Wednesday, and possibly one or two others. These he 
should want written out. If you can get some one who will do 
this for $25, we will be glad to have you do so. If you cannot, 
please let us know by wire early Tuesday." 



209 

The Witness. — I approved the sending of that letter. 
Whether I ordered it or not, I don't remember. 

Q. Why did you think that this young man, Mr. Lewis, was 
under obligations to act for you in those matters ? A. I did not 
think so. 

Q. Vrhat is that ? A. I did not think he was under obliga- 
tions. 

Q. Why did you think that he was taking all of this interest, 
to send you these printed bills, and to draft bills for you, and to 
write you these letters? A. Because I believed he was doing 
what Mr. Stilwell wanted him to do. 

Q. You did not think that he was Mr. Stilwell's clerk, did 
you ? A. At least between clerk and friend, I thought there 
were relations between them, cordiality between them, which 
would lead me to regard it proper to prefer a courteous request 
of Mr. — 

Q. All right. A. I am not through — of Mr. Lewis that I 
would of Mr. Stilwell. I am through. 

Q. Isow, when you made your argument before the Codes Com- 
mittee, you early, in what you said referred to this action, the 
complaint of which is contained in this book here ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Do you remember a colloquy that you had with Senator 
Thompson? A. ^o, sir. 

Q. (reading) " Senator Thompson. — Have you got any idea 
that you can tell me as to how soon that lawsuit can be decided 
that is now pending between the !N'ew York Bank ^ote Company 
and the Exchange, how soon that can be tried ? " Do you remem- 
ber his asking such a question? A. I do. I do not know the 
gentleman's name, but I remember that such a question was 
asked. 

Q. What is that? A. I do not know Senator Thompson, or 
whether it was a Senator, but one of the men serving on the Com- 
mittee asked something similar to that, I remember perfectly 
well. 

Q. Did Mr. Milburn reply: (reading) ^^ We have pnt in 
eveni;hing. Our answer is in." And did you say, ^^ Mr. Ken- 
dall: I believe that to be the case, with the exception that the 
defendant has called on us for a bill of particulars. The bill of 
particulars runs into 4,000 items, each one of which involves a 



210 

very abstruse calculation. We have been at work now over six 
montiis on the bill of particulars. We are not entitled, as I be- 
lieve^ to a trial until after we have tendered it that bill of particu- 
lars. I am not a lawyer, so that if I don't state in legal phrase, 
the auditors will please " — 

Mr. Lyon. — We object to that as immaterial. 

Q. Did you make that statement before the Committee on 
Codes ? A. I think I did, sir. 

Mr. Lyon. — We object to that as immaterial and irrel?vant. 

The Chairman. — He has asked that question. Did he make 
that statement. You have answered it ? 

The Witness. — Yes, I have made that. I think so. 

Q. (reading) ''Senator Thompson. — Would a proper trial 
and decision of that lawsuit take care of your case between you 
and this Exchange ? " Did he ask you that ? A. I think I re- 
member someone asking me that. 

Q. And did you make this reply (reading) : '' It absolutely 
does not affect it in any way, and the lawsuit I am advised by 
the most eminent counsel of the 'New York Bar, that the lawsuit 
is not worth anything at all, as all the decisions are against us; 
that you cannot hold the Stock Exchange because they are not a 
legal entity, not a corporation, and that any verdict that any be- 
nevolent jury gave us would not be sustained, even beyond the 
Appellate Division. I was told that." A. I think you are abso- 
lutely correct, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. — I read from pages four and five of the minutes, 
that it was stipulated — 

The Chairman. — What exhibit is that ? 

Mr. Wilson. — This is Defendant's Exhibit 2 for identification. 
I offer that in evidence. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — What did you offer in evidence ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Just what I have read and what occurred. 

The Chairman. — Only such parts as you read. 

Mr. Wilson. — Only such parts as we shall read from. 

Q. Notwithstanding you had a litigation in which you sued 
1,100 people, and notwithstanding you had been advised by the 



211 

most eminent counsel in iSew York, it was not good for anything, 
you still were spending six montlis of your time in getting out a 
bill of items, of 4,000 different items. Is that right? A. You 
speak absolutely true, sir. 

Q. And then when I asked you yesterday to what extent your 
activities had taken your time with the Stock Exchange in the 
past and you said not to exceed one-half of 1 per cent — did you 
say that ? A. Yes, and I wish to explain my testimony and cor- 
rect it. 

Q. You need not ; that is enough. A. I arise to the privilege of 
correcting my testimony. 

The Chairman. — Your counsel will have the right to bring it 
out. 

The Witness. — The only thing is that somebody else does that 
six months' work. The half per cent, is not personal activity, as 
I understand your question. 

Q. The rest you employ somebody else to do instead of doing it 
yourself? A. Yes, I have not done one minute's work on those 
computations. 

Q. ^ow, you will recall that yesterday I asked you, or said to 
you in a negative form, although your company is called the 
N^ew York Bank x^ote Company you do not print any bank notes. 
Do you remember making that statement ? A. I remember your 
making that statement. 

Q. And your saying yes, sir? A. I did not. 

Q. We print the bank note and we are printing an issue now 
of them or have them in our safe. Do you remember that ? A. 
That is just the opposite of what you say. 

Q. Certainly. You said I did not get it right? A. That is 
right, what the facts are — 

Q. Wai+ a minute. I want to ask you if this occurred when 
you were under oath on the 16th day of December, 1912, and 
under examination by Mr. Untermyer: 

" Mr. Untermyer : What is the business, that is of the "New 
York Bunk I^ote Company ? 

" Mr. Kendall : The engraving of stocks and bonds in steel. 

" Mr. Untermyer : Is that its sole business ? 

"Mr. Kendall: it is. 



212 

^' ]\Ir. Ijiitermver : }ilow long has that been its sole business ? 
'' Mr. JCendall : Twenty-five years or more." 

A. Is it a question whether I said that ? 

Q. Yes. A. I said that. 

Q. Those questions were put to you ? A. They were. 

Q. And that was your answer ? A. Those are my answers. 

Q. Very well. A. Correct. 

Q. You were then arguing and testifying before a committee 
where you claimed that your sole business was engraving stocks 
and bonds on steel such as were listed in the ^ew York Stock 
Exchange, and they refused to list them? A. Correct. 

Q. Yesterday when I asked you the same thing then you told 
me your business or a part of it Avas printing bank notes to sell 
the South American Eepublics ? A. The bank notes is a part of 
our business, but not a large item. 

Q. Don't you see the point ? A. That is not any point. You 
make mountains out of nothing. 

Q. Do you recall my asking you as to how many expert en- 
gravers you had ; do you remember that ? A. Yes. 

Q. Do you remember what you said ? A. Yes. 

Q. Well, now, do you remember testifying before the Com- 
mittee at Washington that at one time your business was a very 
large business, that it now had diminished to nothing ? A. Well, 
now, not quite so extreme as that. 

Q. What is that ? A. ISTot quite so extreme as to nothing. 
But it is inconsiderable, so very inconsiderable that we would be 
better off if we shut up our shop and abandoned the fight; and 
released our capital. 

Q. Then your business has gotten down to where it would be 
better to shut up shop ? A. It is very near. 

Q. And did you tell me yesterday that at times you were em- 
ploying as high as 22 or 23 engravers ? A. Oh, you are crazy, 
man. There is no such testimony at all. 

Q. You think it is me that is luney ; maybe both of us ? A. I 
do, yes. 

Q. I don't know which one of us is mistaken ? A. You made 
me give the names of all the engravers I had yesterday, seven I 
think it was. 

Q. I won't spend any more time with that. Your testimony 
was to the effect that there had been a time when you carried on 
a very large business ? A. A large business. 



213 

Q. That your sole business was steel engravings of stocks and 
bonds such as were listed on the Xew York Stock Exchange ? A. 
That is right. 

Q. That your business had run down, a very considerable busi- 
ness, to where you had better sliut up shop than to do a business ? 
A. That is not my testimony. 

Q. Was that the substance of it ? A. Xo. It went down with 
one whack; as soon as the Stock Exchange would not allow us to 
do any more business we went from 175 down to 35 in less than 
six months. 

Q. And it has remained there? A. Remained less than that. 
We have not averaged 35 people for the last 25 years. 

Q. And is it one of your notions that you are a very rich man ? 

Mr. Lyon. — That is objected to. 
The Chairman. — Sustained. 
Q. xire you a wealthy man ? 
Mr. Lyon. — That is objected to. 
The Chairman. — Objection sustained. 

Q. Did you bring up here and exhibit to the committee what 
you claim was evidences of personal property in the way of sav- 
ings bank books and stocks, evidences of property to the amount 
of substantially $200,000 ? A. I don't object. Yes. 

Q. Was that yours ? A. The company's. 

Q. Was it the company's or yours ? A. As I recollect it it 
was all the company's. 

Q. What were you lugging $200,000 worth of money up here 
for or of property in the presence of this committee or of any 
other committee? A. Because the acctisation was made — 

Q. What did you have ? A. I want to answer that qtiestion. 
I want you to stop and behave yourself. 

Q. All right, I will stop right away. 

The Witness. — May I have the question and answer read 
where I was broken off ? 

The stenographer thereupon read the testimony as follows: 
'' Q. What were you lugging $200,000 worth of money up here 
for or of property in the presence of this committee or of any 
other committee? A. Because the accusation was made — ." 

The Witness (continuing) : Before the Joint Committee that 
we were utterly irresponsible, that we did not have property 



214 

sufScient to insure our continuance in business, tliat we did not 
have the means of properly guarding our securities, and that by 
reason of the smallness and poverty of the concern that we were 
not properly entitled to be allowed to do the business. That is 
my answer, sir. 

Q. That is satisfactory. And so you thought the best way to 
prove it was to bring along the real stuff ? 

The Chairman. — Xever mind. 

A. Won't you please discontinue that ? 

The Chairman. — That is enough of that. 

Q. What did you do v\^ith it, take it home? 

Mr. Lyon. — That is objected to. 

The Chairman. — Sustained. 

Q. Did Bradstreets ask you for a report ? 

Mr. Lyon. — That is objected to. 

The Chairman. — Sustained. 

Q. You are familiar with the commercial agency — 

Mr Lyon. — Objected to. 

The Chairman. — Sustained. 

Q. Did you make a report to Bradstreets? 

Mr Lyon. — Objected to. 

The Chairman. — Sustained. 

Mr. Wilson. — I think that the bill before the Senate Com- 
mittee, his bill so-called, with all of the changes that have been 
made in it, that those bills are now before the committee. 

Q. Did you have more than three letters from Mr. Lewis ? 
A. I don't know, sir. 

Q. Well, you got the letter of March 5th, acknowledging the 
receipt of your check? A. Can I see the letter? 

Q. Yes, it is in evidence. A. Yes. 

Q. So that I may take them in sequence for convenience in the 
record, the letter of March 3, 1913, enclosed the printed copies of 
the Senate bill; the letter of March 5th acknowledged your 
check; the letter of March 10th I want to call your attention 
to. You hold that letter in your hand, do you ? A. Yes. 



215 

Q. ^ow, that letter is from the same Mr. Lewis, is it not? 
A. We received this letter from Mr. Lewis of March lOth. 

Q. Before you received that letter from Mr. Lewis had you 
called him up and talked with him by telephone % A. Can I 
be protected from 40 times answering that question? 

The Chairman. — I think we have gone over this before. 

The Witness. — I object on the ground I have answered it 40 
times and I ask for a ruling. 

Q. I ask you if you or Mr. Field or anyone at your request or 
knowledge had communicated with Mr. Lewis with reference to 
the Assembly bill before March 10th ? A. l^ot that I recall now. 
That was not your former question. 

Q. Then unsolicited in any way Lewis wrote that letter? A. 
Of March 10th? 

Q. Yes. A. Yes, so far as I recollect. 

Q. Beginning: ''Our worst fears are realized." A. It is not 
a letter addressed to me, kindly remark. 

Q. What is that? A. Kindly remark that letter is not ad- 
dressed to me. 

Q. Who is it addressed to ? A. Mr. Field. 

Q. Didn't Mr. Field exhibit it to you? A. He may have; I 
think he did; but he is much more familiar with Lewis than I 
am. 

Q. It was he and Lewis that worked out the bill together, 
wasn't it? A. Did some work on the bill together. 

Q. They prepared it? A. I could not say that; my attorney 
prepared two that are now here — 

Q. Did Mr. Field call your attention to the letter ? A. Prob- 
ably not specially. 

Q. I ask you now distinctly did you or Mr. Field to your 
knowledge call up Mr. Lewis by telephone and say to him that 
you had seen in the IsTew York Times that your bill had been 
introduced into the Assembly? K. He never called me up. 

Q. Do you know of that being done ? A. I^o. He only called 
us up about the check. That is the only thing I know about. 

Q. Well, now, you have got it out, haven't you; then he did 
call you up about the check? A. He never called me up. 

Q. Then he called your partner up about the check? A. The 
vice-president of the Company told me Lewis explained to him 
why he had not received the check. 

Q. That was by telephone ? A. Telephone from ISTew York. 



216 

Q. Therij wlij didn't you say so? A. I have said so two or 
three times and you have stopped it. 

Q. You have said heretofore that Mr. Lewis had called up an 
officer of the corporation ? A. 'No, you have been asking all the 
time whether we called up Mr. Lewis, and we have tried to help 
you out and we cannot do it. 

Q. Then as to this letter what did you understand by ^' our 
worst fears have been realized ? " A. Nothing further than what 
it says there. 

Q. What did you understand the importance of it was ? A. I 
did not understand it; I never met Mr. Cuvillierj and don't 
know who he is. 

Q. Did you know it had been arranged between Field and 
Lewis that Mr. Lewis would see Mr. Knott, the man in whose 
house you lived and have him introduce it? A. I know that is 
not so. 

Q. Hov7 did you know it was not so ? A. Because Mr. Knott 
told me after it had been done that as a matter of courtesy to me 
he had gotten a duplicate bill and gone and put his name on it 
and introduced it, although it had already been introduced by 
Mr. Cuvillier the same man; I never knew of any intention on 
his part; he said it was mere courtesy. 

Q. Then Mr. Knott done it of his own volition ? A. Absolutely. 

Q. In other words your bill was so popular that everybody 
wanted to introduce it ? A. Oh, well — 

Q. Do you read the New York World ? A. No. sir. 

Q. Did' you see the New York World of February 13, 1913 
(handing newspaper to witness). A. (after examining article 
in paper) I do not think I ever saw that paper before. 

Q. Did you have an interview with a World reporter or a 
representative of the World on that day or before that date ? A. 
!N^ot that I remember now. 

Q. With reference to this? A. ^NTot that I remember. 

Q. Did you give the ^ew York Herald that picture ? A. ISTo^ 
sir, absolutely. 

Q. What is that? A. We never had those pictures taken. 

Q. You never did? A. IN'o, sir. 

Q. Did you put that sign or cause it to be put up ? 

Objected to. 
Objection sustained. 



2ir 

Mr. Lewis. — You may mark these five exliibits for identifi- 
cation. Mark the 5 pictures. 

The Chairman. — Identify them first and then you may mark 
them. What do you want of them? 

Mr. Wilson. — My practice is to have them marked and then 
identify them. Then if they are put in it saves remarking. 

The Chairman. — Well, mark them for identification. 

Five photographs marked Defendant's Exhibit 7 to 11 for 
Identification, inclusive. 

Mr. Wilson. — Xow I would like to say to the Chairman that 
my associates think that this is important evidence, as explaining 
the brief that we have put in here, and the -conversation that Mr. 
Kendall had with Senator Stihvell with reference to a brief. 
You will recall that Mr. Kendall says their talk about the brief 
was a sort of a sign or password by which they were to talk 
money. 

The Witness. — I object. There is no such thing. I have 
never made any such statement as that. It isn't in this evidence. 
I ask that it be withdraw^n and stricken out. 

Mr. Wilson. — Will you turn to his evidence about the brief, 
what he said to him, ^vhen he w^ent to his office ? 

The AVitness. — Your Honor I request that the words '^ sign 
and passwords " and the words before it and after it, be stricken 
out of the record. 

Mr. Wilson. — I am quite willing they should be stricken from 
the record. It vv^as only intended so that the Chairman — 

The Yv^itness. — To do me damage. 

Mr. Wilson. — Iso, 1 do not want to damage you for anything. 

Q. I show you Exhibit 7 for identification (handing to wit- 
ness). 

The Witness. — Has that been stricken off the record ? 

The Chairman. — Yes, strike it off the record at the request of 
the witness. 

Q. Do you recognize that as being a fair representation of the 
building of your company, and a placard or sign in the front of 
it? A. I do. 



218 

Mr. Lyon. — I move to strike tliat out. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out. I do not see any reason for 
the introduction of this evidence, counselor. 

Mr, Byrne. — If your Honor please, you will remember in the 
brief there were statements made that this man had the front of 
his building placarded with certain signs, and there was in the 
letter sent by Senator Stihvell to this witness a reference to a 
brief, and there was on the part of this w^itness a desire, at least 
inferentially, from the contents of the letter, that there was some- 
thing said regarding this brief, ^ow we want to show what the 
reason for the conversation Vvas. It is extremely material to 
show the state of mind. 

Mr. Lyon. — The only thing in the letter about a brief was the 
statement that if Mr. Kendall wanted to send the brief, he could 
send it to these gentlemen. 

Mr. Byrne. — That is not the principal fact. 

The Chairman. — What have the photographs got to do with 
that? 

Mr. Byrne. — This is a representation of a building occupied 
by the JSTew York Bank ISTote Company, upon the front of v/hich 
are signs, and by identification or these it will show the reason 
for making statements regarding what the contents of this brief 
might have been, between this witness and the Senator, and for 
that reason it becomes peculiarly relevant and pertinent here as 
a mental condition, or a mental act or state. 

Mr. Lyon. — That is not a condition we can get on the record. 

The Chairman. — We will rule it out for the time being. 

Mr. Byrne. — If your Honor please, it is not a brief to be filed 
by Mr. Kendall, but a brief that had been filed by Mr. Milburn, 
which had been filed on the 19th of March, and which brief was 
in the possession of the Committee and had been presented by Mr. 
Milburn at the hearing at which this witness spoke. You will 
remember that on the 21st of March, reference was made to the 
brief. We wall be able to show and connect it up, that this man 
got into communication with the Senator, and requested him to 
talk with him about this brief, and the reference was made in the 
letter that followed on the 21st. IsTow we want to show what was 
behind this. The statements are in the brief. The brief is in 






219 

evidence, and for that reason we believe this is extremely material 
to this issue. Otherwise, we are being deprived of an oppor- 
tunity to show mental condition, animus and a state of mind that 
bears severely upon the issues here. 

Mr. Wilson. — You will recall yesterday we put in evidence 
certain statements that he made before the joint committee. Also 
such evidence as we should see fit to submit before this case 
closes, that he made before the Senate Committee on Codes. We 
also put in evidence the fact which I read from the statement, 
that the attorneys for the Xew York Stock Exchange declined 
to make any argument. They simply filed what was denomi- 
nated as a statement or a brief, in which they made the state- 
ment, as appears in the record, which I read into this record 
yesterday, which caused some little flurry here at the close of the 
hearing. You will remember what it was. It was said to be an 
attack on him. ^NTow, we say that the matters that they referred 
to, saying that if he should again attack them, after they went 
away, he speaking last, that they then would want a right not to 
come before the Committee again, but to file an additional state- 
ment or answer to what this man said. That he then said, as 
he has admitted here, not that if they talked again he wanted to 
talk again, but only that he should have an equal amount of time. 
That part you will remember, and the little controversy we had. 
"Now, what we say is this : That a matter we can only explain — 
it takes time, I am sorry to say, and you people perhaps don't 
appreciate it to the extent we do — it takes some time to elimi- 
nate a mysterious message like that, that we don't receive. It 
takes some time to eliminate from the minds of people a message : 
" Fifteen is the correct number." 

The Chairman. — Counselor, we are going to allow that in. Go 
ahead. We will overrule your objection. 

Q. Is that (indicating photograph) a correct representation 
of what it purports to be ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that your building? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Or of your company ? A. Yes, sir, we o^vn that building 
and on each side of it. 

Q. Did you prepare that placard or sign ? A. I authorized its 
preparation. 

Q. Did you sign it, " George H. Kendall ? " A. The sign 
painter put my name on it. 



220 

Q. What is that — how is it prepared? A. Canvas, painted 
on canvas. 

Q. What is the length of it? A. 47 feet. 

Q. What is the width of it? A. 12 feet. 

Q. That makes how many yards of canvas, 12 feet wide and 
47 feet long? This is on what street? A. Sixth avenue. 

Q. How long did you display that? A. I don't remember. 
It might have been a couple of weeks. 

Q. When did you put that one up ? A. A year or two ago — 
a couple of years ago. 

Q. Was that to influence legislation ? A. No, sir. 

Q. I will read it, so that it may go on the record. I offer it 
in evidence. 

Said ])hotograph was received and marked Defendant's Ex- 
hibit 7. 

Mr. Wilson. — (Reading) ^' This plant has been practically 
idle 18 years, owing to the thieves of the New York Stock Ex- 
change in not permitting the public to have stocks and bonds 
manufactured by anyone but the engraving trust. We can get 
no redress. All we can do is to let the public know. Our in- 
stincts revolt at this wav, but what would vou do ? George H. 
Kendall." 

Q. What did you put that up for? A. To let the public know 
the situation. 

Q. Now, take Exhibit 8. (Handing to witness.) What is that 
a representation of? A. The front of our building, 75 Sixth 
avenue, New York. 

Q. Is it a good photograph of the situation ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is a busy street ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is the size of that sign? A. 47 feet long, 12 feet 
wide. 

Q. Did you cause that to be painted ? A. I did, sir. 

Q. How long did you display that ? A. A week or two. 

Q. Kept the street full of people looking at it? A. No, sir. 

Q. Well, a good many people ? A. Some people looked at it 
as they went by. 

Q. When did you do that ? A. A couple of years ago. 

Mr. Wilson. — I offer it in evidence. 

Said photograph was admitted and marked Defendant's Ex- 
hibit S. 



221 

Mr. Wilson. — (Keading) " This plant would employ 500 
skilled workmen, but for the thieves of the JSTew York Stock 
Exchange, Avho rob us by forcing our customers to go to the trust. 
George H. Kendall." 

Q. Take Xo. 9. (Handing to witness). That represents the 
same building, the same kind of a placard ; is that right ; A. It 
does. 

Q. Who prepared that? A. I don't know, but I assumed the 
responsibility of it. I approved it. 

Q. Was it done by your direction ? A. By my direction, sir. 

Q. 47 feet long? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 12 feet wide? Yes, sir. 

Q. How long did you keep that up ? A. A week or two. 

Q. You did not have all of these up at one time ? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. You did not have space enough to exhibit them all ? A. 
"No, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. — I offer it in evidence. 

Said photograph was admitted and marked Defendant's Ex- 
hibit 9. 

Mr. Wilson. — (Reading) '' Who assumes the responsibility 
thieves those members of the Xew York Stock Exchange 
who use their position in extorting from corporations the large 
sums that they might save here? I do. George H. Kendall.'' 

Q. You were having fun with them, weren't you. Do you 
think it was funny to call men thieves in that v\^ay publicly ? 

The Chairman. — All right. We will go ahead. 

The Witness. — Let the question be stricken out if I can't 
answer it. 

The Chairman. — Yes, strike it out. 

Mr. Wilson. — Let you and I get along as best we can. Noat 
look at No. 10 there (handing photograph to witness). 

The Witness. — What is the question. 

Q. Is that another one of them ? A. Another sign, sir, but 
the same building. 

Q. On the same building, 47 feet long? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 12 feet wide ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Painted on canvas? A. Yes, sir, and by my responsibility. 



222 

Q. Signed by yoii ? A. 'No, not signed by me. Painted sig- 
nature, Roman letters, not signed by me. 

Q. Won't you read that out loud ? A. '' The stock engraving 
monopoly exacts ten cents on every certificate transferred, while 
the identical same thing can be bought here for five cents. If 
the members of the Exchange who take the difference by way of 
dividends, are not thieves, please tell me what their status is. 
George H.- Kendall." 

Q. Did anybody tell you ? A. We couldn't find out the thieves. 

Mr. Wilson. — Mark that in evidence. 

Said photograph was admitted and marked Defendant's Ex- 
hibit (10. 

Q. ;N'ow Exhibit 11 for identification, that is another one 
(handing to witness) ? A. Same building, sir, different style. 

Mr. Wilson (reading). — '' Thie\^es of the New York Stock 
Exchange. Yours is not petty larceny, but $5,000 a day that the 
corporations could save on their engraving bills, if you allowed 
them to buy here instead of your bank note trust. George H. 
Kendall." 

Mr. Wilson. — Mark that in evidence. 

Said photograph was admitted and marked Defendant's Ex- 
hibit 11. 

Q. ^ow, I suppose those are only a few that you have dis- 
played ? A. I think that is substantially all, except the present 
incumbent. 

Q. You have got one up there now ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you put that up ? A. I think that's been up 
nearly a month, sir. We never kept up one before for more than 
a Aveek or two. 

Q. They get stale and you change them? A. I object to your 
statement, sir. 

The Chairman. — Strike it off the record. 

Q. I shov/ you the World now, of Februarv^ 13th, 1913. A. 
You are pretty enterprising. Oh, well, this is one of the defend- 
ant's Exhibits, this is 1913. 

Q. What do you know about that? A. That is the present 
incumbent aforesaid. 



223 

Q. That is the incumbent that you have got up now ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. And you have had it up during all this excitement. JSTow, 
when did you first display that? A. I should say fully a month 
ago. 

Q. That paper was printed February 13th, and you are now 
up to April 8th or 9th? A. Well, then, that has been up longer 
than that. 

Q. How long had that been up before the paper was printed ? 
A. Must have been immediately at that time. 

Q. Won't you read that one? A. ^'Thieves of the I^ew York 
Stock Exchange. What could you expect when there is not a man 
there brave enough to come out for what he knows is right. Just 
what has happened ? One thousand cowards stand by and see 
one hundred rascals rob the Xew York Bank ^ote Company of 
thirty years' industry, and the public grafted a hundred per cent. 
on their engraving bills. George H. Kendall." 

Mr. Wilson. — I will offer that in evidence. 

Said paper was admitted and marked Defendant's Exhibit 12. 

Mr. Wilson. — I think before you begin I will renew my offer 
of the record or of the complaint in the Federal Court. It is 
so connected v>"ith the other things, I don't see how we can get 
along without it and w^e may want to make use of it, or may not. 

The Chairman. — We will sustain the objection for the time 
being. 

Mr. Byrne. — It is pertinent in the same capacity as tliese 
books. It Vv-as also mentioned in the brief and Mr. Kendall not- 
withstanding, it is parallel to this issue and it must necessarily 
have a bearing upon what we will be able later to take up. 

The Chairman. — We will overrule it for the time being. 

Kedirect Examination. 

By Mr. Lyon : 

Q. At the time when these placards w^hich you have been 
recently shown was put up, was the Stock Exchange still continu- 
ing the discrimination of which you have made a statement, 
against your concern? 



2.24 

Mr. Byrne. — Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, imma- 
terial and not proper rebuttal. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

A. It was. 

Q. Won't you explain to the committee what that discrimina- 
tion was ? 

Mr. Byrne. — I will object to that on the same grounds. A. 
The Stock Exchange does not allow anyone, any corporation to 
buy a stock or bond of us or any other concern in the engraving"^ 
business, in the bank note business; and if anybody does, no 
matter how high they are, how wealthy, buy a bond of us, ^it is 
not allowed to be listed on their board or dealt in in Wall street. 

Q. And for how long has that continued, that discrimination? 
A. Against us it has continued 34 years, minus 5. There was a 
period of five years in the 34 w^hen we were admitted partially. 

Q. Did the drop in the amount of business which your concern 
did, from the large sum which you mention, to the comparatively 
small amount of business, occur after you were thrown off from 
Stock Exchange business ? A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that on the ground it is not proper 
re-direct. 

The Chairman. — This is matter which your attorney brought 
out on cross-examination. It was not brought out on the direct- 
examination. 

Mr. Wilson. — I might suggest to Mr. Lyon something which 
perhaps he doesn't know. In the record he introduced before this 
committee, both the record before the Joint Committee and also 
the record before the Codes Committee, his whole theory and all 
of his statements are set out in full. 

The Chairman. — You mean that is in that case against the 
Stock Exchange? 

Mr. Wilson. — Why, certainly. 

Mr. Byrne. — 'No, the hearing is all set forth in his brief before 
the Codes Committee on March 19th. 

The Chairman. — That is not in evidence, but only such parts 
as you want to use. 

Mr. Wilson. — AVe have no objection. 



226 

Mr. Lyon. — I don't care to put it in. It is altogether too big. 
Head the question, please. 

The question was read by the stenographer as follows : 

^' Did the drop in the amount of business which your concern 
did, from the large sum which you mention, to the comparatively 
small amount of business, occur after you were thrown off from 
Stock Exchange business V A. It occurred immediately. 

Q. And did it continue from that time on ? A. It has continued 
from 1892 down to date, 21 years. 

Q. Is it possible for your concern to engrave securities where 
the purchaser of them — I mean the purchaser of the bank notes 
— does not care to have them listed ? A. It is a negligible per 
cent, of the business. 

Q. Do you recall within recent time any contract for the fur- 
nishing of considerable quantities w^here they w^ere not required 
to be listed on the Stock Exchange ? A. Why, I made for the 
city of Xew York last year sixty-five millions of dollars and the 
year before sixty millions, which the Stock Exchange wrote the 
city they would not list unless they gave it — or if they gave it 
to us, but the Mayor and the Comptroller who had the giving of 
the contract said that although the bonds ought to be listed they 
w^ould not stand for that dictation by the Exchange and they 
gave us that business. But there is practically no business obtain- 
able unless you can give to the customer buying it the opportunity 
to have it used in Wall street. 

Q. Let me see if I understood you. Did you say that the 
Stock Exchange wrote that they would not let it be listed if you 
printed them or unless ? A. If they gave us — 

Q. Wait a moment. If or imless, which word did you use ? 
A. If they gave it to us. May I have the letter ? 

Q. jSTo. Answer the question. A. The Stock Exchange letter. 

Q. State again which the fact was. I think I misunderstood 
you. A. Why, the Stock Exchange wrote the city a letter that if 
they gave us that contract that they would not list it or allow it 
to be dealt in on Wall street, and they did as they said; but the 
mayor would not stand for the dictation and gave us the contract ; 
and these $125,000,000 are not listed on the Exchange and are 
not dealt in, so far as anything the Stock Exchange can do. 



226 

Mr. Byrne. — I move that that be stricken out, as not pertinent 
to the evidence introduced. ]^othing has been brought out on 
direct. 

The Chairman. — It is pertinent to the trouble between the 
Stock Exchange and this man. I will overrule the objection. 

Q. How did you. secure a contract for printing those bonds \ 
A. Merely by being 25 or 30 per cent lower bidder. 

Q. Lower than whom ? A. Than the exchange's company, the 
American. 

Q. Did you fill the contract when you got it ? A. I did and 
they were delivered. 

Q. You printed all of the bonds? A. Yes, and they gave me 
another contract last year for 65,000,000, five million more. 

Q. And did you fill that ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was the contract carried out so far as you know to the 
perfect satisfaction of the officials of New York City ? A. Yes, 
sir. Since I have been in this chamber to-day they have sent 
me word they want 700,000 of the five or 10 millions now stored 
in our vault, v/hich have been there ever since the execution of 
the contract last year. 

By Mr. Wilson : 

Q. Been there ever since when ? Give the date, please, as 
near as you can, A. We finished the contract, as I remember it, 
last fall. Yes, I am sure of it. Last fall I finished the contract. 

Q. That is, they released the bonds as they sell them or want 
to sign them? A. E"o, we store them. They were all paid for 
last year and were left in our vaults. We keep them. 

Q. Are they executed so they are negotiable? A. Absolutely 
all, only one, signature goes on, by that man right there (indicat- 
ing). He sits rio^ht here. The other sisTiature — 



"te ' • -'"-^ ^'-^^ "^"^fe"-"^ ^^^^. ^^*v> ^y.^^^^ ^^,^. 



By Mr. Lyon: 

Q. Let us understand. The bonds are all engraved, all the 
signatures are engraved upon them, with the exception of one ? 
A. Yes. AVe do the Mayor's name, and everybody's name except 
one gentleman who sits behind you. 

Q. And they are in your vaults, with that one signature omit- 
ted ? A. Omitted, that is all. 

Q. And as the city want their bonds they make a requisition 
on you and they are delivered to the city? A. Yes, they leave 



i 



- 227 

with us about 15,000,000 and I think it is, down now, I think, 
to half of that, but their total issue is 60,000,000. All that they 
did not deliver and take — all thej did not take we store for 
them, as a matter of courtesy. 

Q. You have facilities at your place for properly protecting 
those bonds, in the waj of vaults, have you ? A. We have vaults. 

Q. And they are stored in those vaults? A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Byrne. — Is there any relevancy or any materiality in 
this questioning, to the testimony introduced in this case? 

The Chairman. — I think counsel has gone far enough on that. 

Mr. Lyon. — I was only entering the little door they opened. 

The Chairman. — Yes, but they opened it a little way. 

Mr. Wilson. — Why, we have not only opened it but we have 
put in all the evidence. We had to. 

Mr. Lyon. — I want to ask one more question. 

Mr. Wilson. — It is all contained in the records before you. 

Q. State if you know how many other companies are discrim- 
inated against by the Stock Exchange, the same as yours ? 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that, as not material and as being in- 
competent and of no importance to this committee. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

A. In the United States there are 11 others so situated as we 
are, scattered from Boston to San Francisco. 

Q. You understand this bill that you have been interested in, 
would affect them favorably as it would you? A. 11 times as 
much as it does us. 

Q. N^ot each one, but only one eleventh ? A. E'o. The aggre- 
gate. We would be only l/12th of the total affected. 

The Chairman. — Anything further ? 

Q. I think there was some testimony somewhere to the effect at 
least that — something was brought out that if this bill went 
thrcugh with the clause in giving a private person the right 
to bring a suit, that it would be of some benefit to you in 
your business and you were asked whether that did not relate 
to suits which you would bring. I wish you would state what 
you meant by your answer ? A. It would not relate to suits that 



228 

we will bring, because the Stock Exchange could not afford to do 
otherwise than make them free. There would be a penalty of 
$50,000 a day and the total in three months would be so high 
on those people that they would not stand it and it would im- 
mediately become free trade. If they ran against those penalties 
it would wdpe them out. It was so serious a burden that it would 
be cheaper to let everybody have free trade in the engraving 
business. ' There are 12 concerns in this country capable to do 
the work as we do. 

Q. Would you say that it was not that it helped you out in 
bringing suits but the mere fact that 12 different concerns had 
the right to bring suits would prevent them from discriminating ? 
A. Yes. Those companies would have each one penalties of 10 
and 20,0'00 a day and it would open the doors to the engraving 
business being free to anyone to go into. 

Mr. Wilson.— Is that all. 

Mr. Lyon. — Yes. 

Ite-cross Ecsamination. 
By Mr. Wilson : 

Q. l^o^Y, the excuse of the Stock Exchange for not doing busi- 
ness with you and listing the securities printed by you is what ? 
A. Everything that they can think of. 

Q. Everything they can think of. Well, is one reason that you 
display these signs calling every member of the Stock Exchange 
a thief and a robber ? A. We never did it until after 20 years of 
unsuccessful courtesy. 

Q. Well, why are you so anxious to mix yourselves up with 
that class of men ? Why do you want to break in with them ? 
A. It is my business, not the Stock Exchange, but mine is the 
engraving business and they don't allow us to do any business. 
I don't wash to mix with them. I only want to prosecute my 
business. 

Q. Just a word, by way of explanation. Is it true that in 
years gone by the art of engraving in steel was very high art and 
still is? A. It is true, absolutely. 

Q. And it took a great many years to educate a workman ? 
A. It does always. 

Q. And all of those high class works, like bank notes and bonds, 



229 

and so on were printed in that way? A. It is nov\^ and always 
was. 

Q. It is trne, too, that much of the other work that used to be 
engraved on steel is done by simpler and less costly methods now ? 
A. Oh, no, jnst the reverse. The trade has grown enormously, 
but the American has it all. 

Q. I understand, but I say that much of the work that used to 
be printed on steel plates in the past is now being done b}^ less 
expensive processes ? A. 'No, sir. You are wrong. It is just 
the other way. 

Q. I am speaking of railroad tickets and theatre tickets. A. 
They never were printed from steel. 

Q. There is more business in steel engraving that ever? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. And more steel engravers? A. Absolutely the other way. 
They have crushed it now so that there are no steeJ engravers. 
You can remember where there would be steel engravers, but the 
business now is so crushed out there are no more steel engravers. 
The industry has been crushed out and there are practically no 
engravers outside of the American Bank ITote Company. We 
have more than anyone else. 

Q. Why, didn't you and I agree that there are not as many 
steel engravers as there used to be ? A. That I agree with. 

Q. ^N^otwithstanding the business has enormously increased the 
number of workmen is even less ? A. The number of workmen is 
even less. 

Q. Can you tell me when the firm of Lewis & Rand Company 
failed ? A. They never failed, sir. 

Q. When they went out of business ? A. I remember the gov- 
ernment drove them out of business. There was legislation that 
drove them out. 

Q. Did you do any of their work ? A. l^ever did one dollar's 
worth in my life. 

Q. Did the ISTew York Bank ]N"ote Company do any ? A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Did the Kendall Bank Note Company ? A. No, sir, never 
did a single thing for Lewis & Rand. We never printed any 
policy slips. 

Q. Who did their printing? A. The Hamilton Bank Note 
Company, but that is not mine and I never was connected with it. 






230 

Q. What is the name of this engraving company here? A. 
Quajle, you mean ? 

Q. Oliver Quayle & Son. Do you know them well? A. No. 

Q. Do you know the concern ? A. I first saw the place when 
I came up here on February 13th and walked around and saw it, 
with Mr. Field, the first time I ever saw it. 

Q. They do all the printing for the State or nearly all of it ? 
A. 'No, they don't. 

Q. All of the engraving? A. Oh, no. They have done I 
think two issues, the Adirondack Water Preserve, whatever it is. 
Mr. Field can tell you about it, and then there is — not- the good 
roads. There are two issues they have done. I do not know of 
any others. 

Q. Do you know they employ 20 odd expert engravers now ? 
A. I know they don't, not in steel. 

Q. How many would you think ? A. There are not 20 capable 
expert engravers in New York City outside of the American. 

Q. Outside of what ? A. I say not 20 outside of the Ameri- 
can. 

Q. How many do you think this company employs ? A. It is 
not proper for me to think, but I know nothing like that quantity. 

Q. Did you ever hear Oliver Quayle & Son had any trouble 
with the Stock Exchange ? A. Why, they have no business. 
They engrave stationery. They don't engrave stocks and bonds. 

Q. Did you know or do you know that Oliver Quayle & Son 
or their work has been accepted by the New York Stock Ex- 
change and they do work for people who seek to list their stocks 
there ? 

Mr. Lyon. — I object to that. 

Objection sustained. 

Mr. Wilson. — There isn't any doubt about the proposition. 

Q. Is there any reason why the Stock Exchange don't do busi- 
ness with you, except they don't want to ? 

Mr. Lyon. — That is objected to. 

The Witness. — I will answer you. The Stock Exchange does 
no business with any one but they say to the New York Central 
Eailroad you shall not buy of us. There is the iniquity of the 
situation. They never buy the securities themselves. 

Mr. Wilson. — I will put in evidence now from the records of 
the proceedings before the Joint Committee the arguments and 



231 

statements placed before the Committee bj Mr. John Milbuni or| 
Mr. John Milburn, Jr., and the whole of that book, with the 
statement by Mr. Kendall and all of the statements that he made 
at that time. 

Mr. Lyon. — I object to it. 

The Chairman. — Overruled for the time being. Is there 
anything else yon want of this witness ? 

Mr. Wilson. — N'o. 

The Chairman. — All right. The next witness. 

Attorney-General Oarmody. — Yon mean the evidence is 
excluded now, not that the objection is overruled. 

The Chairman. — Yes. 

George A. Field, called as a witness on behalf of the State, 
being duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Direct examination by Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Your full name is George A. Field? A. It is. 

Q. What is your age? A. 34. 

Q. Where do vou live ? A. 244 West 73rd street, 'New York 
City. 

Q. What is your business? A. I am at the present time Vice- 
President of the New York Bank ISTote Company. 

Q. How long have you occupied that position? A. That par- 
ticular position, about a year and a half. 

Q. What was your business before that ? A. I had several 
positions with the company, several official positions. I have 
been Treasurer, Secretary and Manager at different times. 

Q. What particular part of the work is under your charge? 
A. At times all of it, that is the general supervision. 

Q. And has been during the year and a half you have been 
connected with it? ISTot entirely, because I was ill part of the 
time. 

Q. You are related to the last witness, Mr. Kendall, a relative? 
A. I am a second cousin. 

Q. Did you come to Albany with Mr. Kendall at any time in 
the month of February in connection with some legislative action 
as affecting your business? A. I did, on the 13th; on the 13th 
of February,'^ 1913. 



232 

Q. Mr. Kendall and you came together at that time to Albany t 
A. We did. 

Q. Did yon go with Mr. Kendall before the Governor ? A. We 
did. 

Q. And from there where did you go ? A. We went to the 
Senate Codes Committee room. 

Q. Did you hear the Governor say something about where you 
should go?. A. I did. 

Q. What is that? 

Mr. Byrne. — E'ow we object to that. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — There is already in evidence in 
the same direction. 

Q. That is so, isn't it? A. It is. 

Q. He sent you to Senator Stilwell ? A. I heard part of the 
conversation. 

Q. After that suggestion did you seek out Senator Stilwell? 
A. We found him in his ofEce. 

Q. Was there a conversation in which he participated ? A. 
There was. 

Q. State that conversation from the beginning, please ? A. 
Mr. Kendall said that he had been sent by the Governor to see 
him, relative to a hearing which he was likely to have before the 
Codes Committee, in which he could explain to it the discrimina- 
tion of the IlsTcw York Stock Exchange against his Company, 
with the idea of getting legislation which would clear the situa- 
tion and permit him to do business without discrimination. 

Q. Proceed; give the whole conversation? A. Mr. Stilwell 
said something about our company being a small concern, and 
Mr. Kendall replied that it was not. That it had very large assets, 
although it was employing very few people at the present time. 
That it was capable of probably employing in the neighborhood 
of 600 hands, without buying any more machinery or with any 
increase in capital or money, and Mr. Stilwell asked him further 
about the discrimination, and Mr. Kendall explained it. I don't 
suppose you want that, do you ? It has been pretty well covered. 

Q. 'Not very much of it. A. Mr. Kendall explained about the 
general situation. Mr. Stilwell listened to it and said that it 
was a matter that required considerable thought. He did not 
see exactly how legislation could be provided for, but he thought 
it would come under the penal code and as an amendment of some 



233 

kind, and lie said he would have to look that up a little bit, and 
that he would be glad to accord Mr. Kendall any courtesy to the 
Governor there, to appear before the Committee and state his 
case, so that they would fully understand it. And the way it 
was finally left was that Mr. Stilwell w^ould in the meantime look 
up the penal code and see where legislation would fit in, and that 
Mr. Kendall would appear or could appear on the following 
Wednesday, when a hearing was to be had on other bills, and he 
could then state his case, and that was substantially wliat oc- 
curred at that time. 

Q. Did YOU come to Albanv on the dav designated by Senator 
Stilwell? A. I did. 

With Mr. Kendall ? A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know the day of the month? A. That was the 19th 
of February. 

Q. What did you do after you got, here ? A. AYe came up, as 
I remember it, on one of the early trains, the Empire State, I 
think, and we went direct^ to the Capitol and first to Mr. Stil- 
well's ofiice. He was not present. We were told he w^as upstairs 
in the Senate Chamber, and I think we v^ent up there. As I 
remember, he came out and spoke to Mr. Kendall, and I think 
something was said about their seeing each other later in the 
day, that he was too busy at that time. 

Q. He came out of the Senate, Senator Stilwell was in the 
Senate ? A. As I remember, yes. He came outside up to the rail 
where we were. 

Q. And you observed a conversation between Mr. Kendall and 
Senator -Stilwell ? A. Yes ; it was ver^^ short. 

Q. Did you hear anything that was said ? A. Yes, as I stated, 
there was something said about he was too busy then, and I think 
he asked Mr. Kendall to come in and sit down as a matter of fact, 
and Mr. Kendall asked him if he could talk with him if he went 
in, and he said no, that the Senate was in session, so he said, '^ I 
will wait for you outside." 

Q. When did you next see him ? A. You mean that same day ? 

Q. Yes. I w^ish you would go on from that point and narrate 
the conversations and incidents that took place on that aay m 
which Senator Stilwell, yourself, Mr. Kendall or anyone else 
participated, without interruption. 

Mr. Byrne. — I suggest that it be put in the form of questions. 



234 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I have put a question. A. My 
recollection is we did not see Senator Stilwell until we saw him in 
the Senate Codes Committee room at a hearing which was taking 
place, which was the Moving Picture Bill, as I remember it. 
That took considerable time. 

Q. Tell me, when you saw him there first ? A. What time ? 

Q. Yes, A. About 3 o'clock, or 3 :30, I should say, and after 
the hearing had proceeded for some leng^th of time Mr. Stilwell 
got up from his seat as chairman, and Mr. Kendall was standing 
at that time back of the room; the room was very full, several 
people were standing up. I don't know whether Mr. Stilwell as 
he passed Mr. Kendall spoke to him. I don't know whether he 
spoke to him or beckoned him, but Mr. Kendall accompanied him 
out, and I also. They went out into the corridor. I did not 
accompany them closely. I remained practically in front of the 
Senate Codes door. They walked up and down the corridor. I 
saw Stilwell produce a paper from his pocket and give it to Mr. 
Kendall. They had a further conversation, of which I heard 
nothing. Mr. Kendall came over to me after the conversation, 
and showed me a paper Avhich was a very short, as I remember, 
draft, or suggestion of a draft of a bill. Mr. Kendall asked me 
what I thought about it. 

Mr. Byrne. — ■ I object, and ask to have it stricken out. 

The Chairman. — Yes. 

Q. You saw Mr. Stilwell take a paper from his pocket, and 
exhibit it, as they walked up and down the corridor ? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you observe whether Mr. Kendall took that paper? 
A. He did.^ 

Q. ¥/as that the paper he showed you? A. It was. 

Q. Proceed. A. Do you want what Mr. Kendall said to me. 

Q. 'Not unless Senator Stilwell was present. A. I think, as 
a matter of fact, Mr. Stilwell came up with Mr. Kendall, and 
Mr. Kendall said that he wished — 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that, and ask that it be stricken out 
on the ground he says he thinks. 

Q. Only whatever took place in the presence of Senator Stil- 
well, nothing else? A. Mr. Stilwell was present at part of the 
conversation where Mr. Kendall was talking with me regarding 
this draft. 



235 

Q. Give what occurred when Senator Stilwell was present? 
A. He asked me what I thought of it. 

Q. Who asked jou? A. Mr. Kendall, and I said I did not 
think it covered the case. He said, ^' ]^either do I." I remem- 
ber the exact words, and Mr. Stilwell said something, I have 
forgotten what it was, simply that he probably had to go into the 
room, and he did. That was practically all that was said in my 
presence. Mr. Stilwell went into the room, and Mr. Kendall and 
I remained outside a few minutes. 

Q. Vv^hen did you next see Senator Stilwell, if at all; that 
day? A. After the Moving Picture Bill hearing was over Mr. 
Kendall spoke and Mr. Stilwell was present. Of course during 
Mr. Kendall's speech, Mr. Stilwell was present, in which he 
described the Stock Exchange situation to the Codes Committee, 
after which several members spoke to Mr. Kendall, and I don't 
remember whether Mr. Stilwell did speak — he did speak to him, 
but I have forgotten it; it was a general conversation, nothing of 
any bearing on this situation. 

Q. You were there when Mr. Kendall spoke, before the Com- 
mittee ? A. I was. 

Q. That was late in the afternoon, was it not, I understand ? 
A. I should say in the neighborhood of six o'clock. 

Q. Were you with Kendall during all the time he was at 
Albany that day ? A. I was — you asked me was I with him all 
the time. 

0. Yes. A. I think so. 

Mr. Byrne. — I would ask that be stricken out on the ground it 
is not responsive. He said he thought so. 

The Chairman. — Denied. 

The Witness. — There might be five minutes, or something of 
that kind, but we were together practically during the time he 
was up there. 

Q. If there was such a firm, where was it? If there v/as a 
time during your stay in Albany during the 19th of February, 
when Mr. Kendall was not in your presence, will you state when 
it v/as, as nearly as you can; was it in the afternoon, before the 
hearing ? A. We were for a few moments, yes, I don't remember 
just exactly when. I think I went down and looked into the 
museum, as a matter of fact, for a few minutes. 



236 

Q. Was tliere any time before Senator Stilwell went back into 
the Codes Committee that Mr. Kendall was out of your sigbt, 
or with Senator Stilwell and Mr. Kendall were out of your sight ? 
A. 'No, Vvdien they went out in the hall, I think they were in my 
sight every minute. I followed them out. 

Q. Did you see Mr. Samuel Lewis that day ? A. I did not. 

Q. Was Samuel Lewis in the presence of Mr. Kendall that 
day? A. No, sir. . 

Mr. Wilson. — That was on the first day ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That was on the 19th, the day 
of the hearing. 

The Witness. — The second time we came to Albany. 

Q. Did you hear his name mentioned between Senator Stil- 
well and Mr. Kendall ? A. I did not. 

Q. Was his name mentioned to you ? A. It was. 
Q. By whom ? A. Mr. Kendall. 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that and ask that it be stricken out 
unless it was in the presence of Senator Stilwell. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I am not sure that is competent 
unless — I will find out when it was. 

Q. Was it during any of the conversations when Mr. Stilwell 
was present or after he had just left? A. It was immediately 
after he had left, while we were standing out in the hall a few 
moments. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I think it is proper. He said 
his name was mentioned immediately after the first conversation 
out in the corridor after Senator Stilwell left. I am not going 
to ask what he said. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

Q. Llis name v/as mentioned at that time ? A. Yes. 

Q. Have you told all that took place on the 19th at Albany, 
substantially ? A. Substantially so, I think, as I recall now. 

Q. Where did you have your luncheon that day, you and 
Kendall? A. At the Ten Eyck. 

Q. And your dinner? A. I think on the train. I am quite 
sure so. 

Q. Going down ? A. I think we got the 7 o'clock train down 
as I remember it. 



237 

Q. Was that day when you were there very late ? A. I think 
it was abont 6 o'clock or half past 6 when we got through. I 
think we hurried to catch the 7 o'clock train, the Empire. 

Q. You returned to Albany on a later date, yourself and Mr. 
Kendall? A. We did. 

Q. AVhen ? A. The next time was on February 26th. 

Q. Had any arrangements been made on the 19th for your 
return on that date 

Mr. Byrne. — Objected to on the ground it is improper, imma- 
terial and irrelevant. 

Q. With Senator Stilwell ? 

Mr. Byrne. — That calls for a conclusion of the witness. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

A. I might say here that this question has recalled something 
to my mind which took place at the hearing on the 19th which 
I omitted or forgot about. Shall I relate that? 

Q. Yes. A. After Mr. Kendall had spoken there were sev- 
eral Senators speaking to him — as I say, a general conversation, 
and at that time Mr. Stilwell asked him about speaking at the 
joint meeting which w^as to take place a v/eek later, as matters 
which he spoke of had a general bearing on the Stock Exchange 
bills, and particularly the incorporation bill. I remember hear- 
ing Mr. Stilwell asking about it. 

Q. Where did that conversation occur? A. That was in the 
Codes room, I think, while we were getting our papers and things 
ready to leave. 

Q. And in whose presence ? A. There were two or three peo- 
ple in the room. I don't know whether any of them heard it or 
not ? 

Q. Was it a remark stated publicly in the presence of the Com- 
mittee ? A. 'No, it was not. 

Q. Stated to Mr. Kendall in your presence? A. I think so. 

Q. What time did you get here on the 26th? A. About 11:30 
as I remember it. 

Q. When did you first see Senator Stilwell on that day? A. 
Between half past 11 and 12. 

Q. Where did you have your lunch on that day? A. Febru- 
ary 26th? 

Q. Yes. A. I had it at the Ten Eyck alone. 



238 

Q. Where did you separate — when and where did you separ- 
ate from Kendall? A. Go back just a little bit; we met Mr. 
Stilwell or saw Mr. Stilwell about noon, as I said. 

Q. Starting from then, you saw him about noon, where did 
you see him? A. 1 think it was in the Senate Chamber and 
arrangements were made — 

Q. Tell us what was said? A. Mr. Kendall said he wanted 
to see him and talk over the bills. Mr. Kendall then invited him 
to lunch, as I remember it, arrangements were made by them to 
have lunch together on that day, and I sat most of the time in 
the Senate ; I was listening, as I remember, to what v/as going on, 
and Mr. Kendall most of the time was out in the Senate lobby. 
After the Senate had adjourned for recess we went back to find 
Mr. Stilwell, both of us together, but he had in some way gone 
out without our seeing him. We inquired where he was and 
were told that he was, I think, in the Judiciary Committee, v/hich 
is a room at the opposite end beyond the Senate from here. We 
went over there and it happened the door was open while he was 
standing there ; we saw he v^^as there, and we waited outside easily 
half an hour, possibly more. I know I got tired of v/aiting. Finally, 
Mr. Stilwell came out and joined Mr. Kendall and they went 
down the hall together and I went over to the Ten Eyck. 

Q. 'Now, when did you next see them? A. I came back a 
little before half-past two, as I recollect, and reserved two seats 
in the Senate Chamber so that Mr. Kendall could have a seat 
when he came iu, vrhich was somewhere around half-past two 
or a little later possibly, with Mr. Stilv/ell. 

Q. Go on from there and relate the events in which Senator 
Stilwell and Kendall took part. You got back about 2 :30, I 
understand, to the Senate ? A. About. 

Q. Start in from that point? A. Mr. Stilwell was in conver- 
sation with Mr. Kendall, and as I recollect, Mr. Kendall had a 
bill or a paper which turned out to be a draft of a bill. They 
were talking about it at that time, as they came in together, and 
Mr. Kendall showed me that bill, and while we were talking, Mr. 
Stilwell either sent for Mr. Lewis, or saw him, and called him 
over — I don't remember, but Mr. Lewis came up and Mr. Stil- 
well introduced Mr. Lewis to Mr. Kendall and myself. 

Q. Tell us what he said ? A. He said, '' This is Mr. Samuel 
Lewis, the Senate revision clerk," and suggested that Mr. Ken- 
dall— 



239 

Q. Just wait a moment. I want that introduction. I want all 
of it. This was on the 26th, jou say, at something like 2:30 in 
the afternoon. A. Yes. 

Q. And you say that Senator Stihvell sent for a "uan named 
Lewis, and Lewis came ? A. Yes. 

Mr. Wilson. — He don't quite say that. 

The Witness. — He either sent for him or he came. I don't 
remember. I wasn't v^^atching Senator Stihvell every minute; so 
I don't know. 

Q. ]\Ir. Lewis was not there when you met Senator Stihvell ? 
A. As a matter of fact, I am quite sure that he was talking to 
one of the stenographers, possibly, at the front of the Senate 
Chamber, I am not positive. 

Q. Y\^e would like to have just what occurred, word for w^ord, 
if you can give it ? A. I think the first words were, that " This 
is Mr. Samuel Lewis, the Senate Eevision Clerk." ]^ow, I don't 
know whether it was at that particular moment, or a little later, 
when Mr. Stilwell said, " This is the man you can send the check 
to." 

Q. Get what happened now. ^ow. Senator Stilwell is speak- 
ing, and he said, " This is Mr. Lewis," does he? A., Yes, sir. 

Q. Who did he say that to ? A. To both of us, I think, in 
one general introduction. I don't think he said " Mr. Field, Mr. 
Kendall — this is Mr. Field and Mr. Kendall." 

Q. Did he say that? A. I wouldn't say just exactly those 
words. I don't remember now. He made a general introduction 
to us. 

Q. Give us the exact words, if you can, if not the substance? 
A. As I recollect the exact words were these : '^ This is Mr. Lewis, 
Senate Revision Clerk. Mr. Field, Mr. Kendall." 

Q. What did you do when you got the introduction ? A. He 
said to Mr. Kendall that he would suggest — 

Q. AYhat did you do after that was said ; was there any shak- 
ing of hands, or any remarks passed between you ? A. Probably 
we shook hands. I wouldn't say we did or did not. 

Q. Can you tell us all that was said ? I want all that was said 
following that introduction in which you participated? A. 
Well, at that time he turned to Mr. Kendall, and suggested that 
inasmuch as he had found some fault with the bill which they 
had been discussing when they came in, that he go with Mr. 



240 

Lewis, and go over it with him, and fix the bill the way he wished 
it, and Mr. Kendall said that he wanted — preferred to stay in 
the Chamber and hear the speeches, but that I should go with 
Mr. Lewis, as I was more or less conversant with it, and work 
out a bill, which, as I knew what he wanted, I could do, and 
that we should work out a bill together, and as we left, as I recol- 
lect it, something Avas said — Mr. Stilwell said, ''This is the 
man to send the check to.'' I am not positive whether he said 
that at the very first time, or whether it was said as we were 
leaving. 

Q. You are not positive whether he said it as he* introduced 
him ^ A. T am not absolutely positive. 

Q. Ob, a.> you were leaving at the conclusion of the entire con- 
versation. 

Q. Then you left Kendall with Senator Stilwell and you and 
Lewis went away ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Just a moment, Mr. Carmody. ^ow I am 
entireh^ satisfied with the statement of the witness, and I am 
more than dissatisfied with the addenda of counsel. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — ^ Is that an objection or a compli- 
ment ? If my question is objectionable, I would like to have it 
pointed out. 

Mr. Wilson. — The witness simply said that he was not certain 
whether this check was spoken of at that time, or whether it was 
spoken of when he was leaving. ISTow one version of it will have 
to be contradicted. The other version of it then, this witness and 
Mr. Lev/is would recollect alike, that is the only reason. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I am away beyond that, and 
you have not been following me. 

Mr. Yv^ilson. — Yes, I was following you, but I was some ways 
behind. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I am not on that subject at all. 
I am asking now, if he left Kendall and Stilwell together when 
he and Lewis took their departure. That is the question. 

Mr. AYilson. — I move to strike out the repetition and addition 
that the Attorney-General made to v/hat the witness testified to. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I made no addition or repeti- 
tion. 



241 

Tlie Chairman. — What part of that do you want stricken out '( 

Mr. Wilson. — I have stated I was satisfied with what the 
w^itness said, but the Attorney-General in repeating it, added 
something to it that he did not say. 

Attorney-General Carniody. — 'No, I did not. I am asking a 
question now. I am not asserting anything. 

Q. I ask you now as a question, when joii and Lewis went, 
did you leave Senator Stilwell and Mr. Kendall together ? A. I 
did. 

Q. Where did you and Levv^is go ? A. We went into a room 
which at that time I thought was a bill drafting room. It looked 
much like it. It looked like my idea of a bill drafting room 
would be. There were several clerks probably four or five work- 
ing, and there were many bills, different printed bills laying 
around on the table. We went over to Mr. Lewis' desk in one 
corner, and started to work over these bills. Mr. Lewis brought 
out several drafts of bills, two of which I think — 

Q. You say he brought out, brought out from where? A. 
Brought to my attention, two of which he said had been given him 
by Mr. Stilwell for his use in drawing iip the bills. 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that, and ask that it be stricken out. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out. 

Q. That is not proper. I am asking what you did. A. V\e 
read over the different drafts of bills which were before us, some 
of which I had in my pocket, some of which he produced, and 
after about an hour's work, I should say, we agreed on a tentative 
form of a bill. There were some parts of it that I didn't think 
were what we wanted — covered the case exactly, but he suggested 
that the best way to do was this. Is this competent ? 

Q. I don't want any suggestions. 

Mr. Wilson. — Let him state. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — You objected to it. 

Mr. Wilson. — I think I know what he is going to say. 

The Witness. — He suggested that be left and be amended 
either in the com^mittee or at some future time. That the quickest 
way to get somewhere was to get a tentative draft of a bill pre- 
pared, and we finally did. That was given to one stenographer 



242 

to write out. That stenographer v/as interrupted and it was then 
given to another, and I left Mr. Lewis then after this was well 
started, and went back to the Senate Chamber, and in abont an 
honr — well, I won't say an hour — a little later, I shonld think 
possibly an hour, J\h\ Lewis came back with four or five copies 
of this bill, typewritten, with a sort of a blue cover, as I remem- 
ber, on the outside of each. He gave one of those to Mr. Kendall 
and myself, and four to Mr. Stilwell. That is what occurred 
withont conversation. Xow if yon Avish — 

Q. I don't v:ant any conversation. 

Mr. Byrne. — What was that four ? 

The Witness. — There were four copies of this tvpewritten 
bill. 

Q. Did Senator Stilwell say anything after you produced that 
typewritten bill and returned with it ? A.I might mention that 
Mr, Stihvell was not with us all that time. He came up, just as 
it so happened, just a few minutes before Mr. Lewis returned. 

Q. AYas there something said about introducing the bill ? A. 
There was. 

Q. By whom? A. Mr. Stilwell. That he would either see to 
the introduction, or introduce it himself the next morning, I 
presume. I don't think he said the next morning. As a matter 
of fact, I don't think he did. He said, " I will attend to the 
introdu.ction, or introduce it myself, and attend to having it 
introduced in the Assembly.'' He did not say by whom or how, 
or when in the Assembly. 

Mr. Wilson. — That was in the presence of Mr. Lewis? 

The Witness. — I think Mr. Lewis caiue np and gave us the 
bills and practically went away without any further conversation. 
I don't think anything was said. 

Q. Is that the bill that has been oifered in evidence here, 
Vvdthont the interlineations? Is that similar to ISTo. 1188? A. It 
is 1188, without the interlineations, I believe. I didn't compare 
it then. We read it over, bnt I think that is substantially so. 

Q. Was the printed copy of that bill afterwards sent you ? A. 
Yes, several days later. 

Q. Do you remember Vv^hen ? A. I think on the 22nd of Febru- 
ary, Ave received that, as I remember it. 



243 

Q. Xow, you liave told all that happened on the 19th — the 
13th, the 19th and the 26th of February at Albany, that you now 
recall ^ A. Everything that I recall. Of course there are other 
little things that I might recall later. I wouldn't say that I have 
eiven ever^iihins:. 

Q. When did you have any further communication with any- 
body in respect to this matter ? A. Perhaps I don't understand. 

Q. Was there a letter sent by you to Samuel Lewis, after you 
returned to ISTew York ? A. JN'ot by me. 

Q. Letter signed by you ? A. ISTot immediately. There was 
subsequently, but not the next day. 

Q. I am asking about the next event that you took part in, the 
next transaction. Was that the mailing of a letter by you to 
J^ewis. A. I think I wrote him on March 7th, I think was the 
date of the letter — the first letter I wrote him. 

Q. That letter I think has been put in evidence ? A. I think I 
did have a communication with Mr. Lewis though, before that 
letter, so your question asking me if I had any communication, 
I would like to correct. 

Q. All right, go on. A. I think on Saturday following Wednes- 
day, following the 26th, we had not received a printed copy of the 
bill, or as I recollect, heard from Mr. Lewis in any way, or Mr. 
Stilwell, and as we wanted a printed copy, and had mislaia tne 
copy which Mr. Lewis had given us on the 26th — we couldn't 
find it and haven't found it since — I called Mr. Lewds up at his 
office, asking — I didn't get him the first time. He then called 
up our office and as I recollect I asked him — 

Mr. Byrne. — I will object to that. 

Q. What is this between, the ^ew York offices, or with Albany ? 
A. Xew York offices. 

Q. All I want is the fact here. I don't care so much for all 
these intermediate affairs. Get down to March 7th. You wrote 
a letter to Lewis on March 7th from ^ew York to Albany. 

Mr. Wilson. — Vf hen was the conversation between their two 
offices, where he first called Lewis up and Lewis subsequently 

called you ? 

The Witness. — February 29th, I think, 'Saturday. 

Q. That was on the subject of this bill? A. I merely asked 
him for printed copies of the bill. 



244 

Q. Over the telephone? A. That's all. 

Q. Did you get them ? A I^ot then. 

Q. When did you get them ? A. On March 4:th, I think it was, 
about then. 

Q. Well, the next communication was this letter of March 7th, 
was it ? A. Mine you mean ? 

Q. Yours ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You had no other communication with anybody in connec- 
tion with this event imtil March 7th, did you ? A. E'ot personal. 

Q. I just want what you did personally; and on that day you 
wrote Lewis a letter ? A. If that's the correct date I think it is 
March 7th. 

Q. Let me show you this (handing to witness) to refresh your 
recollection. See if you can. A. Yes, that is right, correct. 
March 7th I wrote that letter. 

Q. That is the first letter you wrote Lewis ? A. I think it is. 
I am very sure it is. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Have you that letter ? Has that 
been introduced? 

Mr. Byrne. — That I think has been introduced. 

Q. I show you your letter-press book that was proved in evi- 
dence 3^esterday, calling your attention to page 480. And ask 
you if that is a copy of a letter that you mailed Lewis ? A. It is. 

Q. Do you know whether that was mailed to him or not? A. 
I didn't see it mailed, but I presume it was in the usual course. 

Mr. Byrne. — We object. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I am not going to offer it until 
I prove it was mailed. 

Mr. Wilson. — Let Mr. Lewis look at it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I do not see any harm in your 
admitting it. It is not of enough importance to waste any time 
about. 

Mr. Wilson. — Just let him answer. It is important enough 
to show where we come to right Cuvillier, whatever the name is — 

The Witness. — May I state how I came to write that letter. 



245 

Attorney-General Carmody. — E'o, I will read it : 

'' Makch 7tli, 1913. 
" Mr. Samuel Lewis, 

'' Senate Revision Clerk j 
''Albany, N. Y.: 
'" Dear Sir. — Referring to yours of the 3rd, in wliich you state 
that the bill JSTo, 1188 had not been introduced in the Assembly,, 
would say that the newspapers report that Rep. Cuvillier did so 
introduce it. If this is not the case, please have it attended to 
at once. More important than this is that you write me imme- 
diately what the facts are. 

" Very truly yours, 

'' GEORGE A. FIELD." 

Mr. Wilson. — 'Now, may it be conceded that it was for that 
letter that we replied that unfortunately it turned out to be true ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — We will see what the fact is. 

Q. You received a letter dated March 10th, the letter put in 
evidence yesterday, from Mr. Lewis ? A. From Mr. Lewis, yes. 

Q. Dated March 10th, and in which he used the language men- 
tioned by counsel ? A. In which he refers to Assemblyman 
Cuvillier ? 

Q. Yes. A. Yes, I remember it. 

Q. How did you get the address of Samuel Lewis, and where 
did you get it? A. I got that address on February 26th. Mr. 
Lewis gave me a card on which was his address ; I think his ^ew 
York address, quite sure so, and it occurs to me he wrote in ink, 
'^ Senate Revision Clerk, Albany, N. Y.," as I recollect. 

Q. Where were you when Lewis gave you that card ? A. I 
think it was after we had been working in the bill drafting room. 

Q. Was Kendall present? A. He was not. 

Q. What did you do with the card ? A. I gave it to Mr. Ken- 
dall. I think, in our office, later. 

Q. Well, what was the date when you gave it to Mr. Kendall ? 
Was it before the 27th? A. ivTo, I think it was on the 2Yth he 
asked me if I had the address, and I said I had. 

Q. What transpired on the 27th to call for the address of 
LeAvis? A. Mr. Kendall was v/riting Mr. Lewis, and sending a 
check to him, which I knew. 



246 

Q. That was the $250 check? A. That was the $250 check. 

Q. And was it in connection with that event that he asked you 
lor the card or the address? A. It was. 

Q. Did you give it to him ? A. I did. 

Q. Have you got it ? A. I thought I had^ but I haven't heen 
able to find it since the matter came up. I have been looking 
through my papers. 

Q. Was it the ordinary visiting card with the name and the 
address ? A. Yes, it was an ordinary sized card, an engraved 
card, as I remember it. 

Q. One similar to this that I show you (handing card to wit- 
ness). A. Yes, but my recollection is it had also Mr. Lewis' l^ew 
York . address at the bottom. 

Q. Did it have anything else on ? 

Mr. Wilson. — That is written on it. 

A. E'o, I think it was an engraved card with the !N"ew York 
address on, as I recollect. 

Q. Then it would be Mr. Samuel Lewis, Jr.. with his xvTew 
York address on? A. 261 Broadway, as I recollect it. 

Q. A^%ere did you get the address at Albany of Mr. Lewis ? 
A. He had it written on his card, as I recollect, '' Senate Revision 
Clerk, Albany, -New York." 

Q. On the same card ? A. On the same card. Anyway, I 
knew he was here. 

Q. Did he write that that day in your presence? A. That is 
my recollection. 

Q. Senate Revision. Just tell us what was on it — what he 
wrote on it? A. My recollection is it said Senate Revision 
Clerk. 

Mr. Wilson. — That we object to as not the best evidence; that 
the cards are the best evidence. 

Q. You say you have not the card ? A. It probably is in 'NeYv 
York. I know I turned it over to Mr. Kendall. He may have 
it. 

Q. All I want to know now^ is, did you get the address that 
was placed upon the letter that enclosed the check from the card 
that Lewis gave you ? A. Yes, T am not quite sure so. 

Mr. Wilson. — Well then, the only confusion is whether there 
was one card or two cards. 



247 

Attcrnej-Gerjeral Carmodv. — There is no confusion whatever. 
We will go right along. 

2\[y. Wilson. — Excepting he says he gave the card to Mr. 
Kendall, there is that confnsion. 

Attorney-General Carniody. — I ask you to allow nie to go on 
with the v\dtness, and let ns get throngh. 

Mr. Wilson. — Certainly. 

Q. You know the check was mailed to that address do you, on 
the 27th? A. I know that. 

Mr. Byrne. — He can tell us what he knows generally by way of 
suggestion. 

The Witness. — I can tell what I know about it. I know the 
letter vv^as written and copied and put in the basket we have for 
letters to be mailed. 

Q. iS0Vy\ we get down to the 10th of March. That letter you 
got from Lewis March 19 th, seems to be the next date of impor- 
tance in connection with this transaction. Did you come to 
Albanv on that day ? A. I did. 

Q. With Mr. Kendall ? A. Yes. 

Q. That was the first time you came to Albany after the 27th? 
A. 26th. 

Q. 26th of February? A. Yes. 

0. Was there any other transaction that you know of in con- 
nection vrith this event, between the letters that I have called 
your attention to and your visit to Albany on the 19th of March? 
A. Vriiy, T think I remember — I do remember Mr. Kendall — 
I am thinking of a previous letter. I wish that be stricken out. 

Q. In connection uath this transaction. A. I don't think of 
anything, no. 

Q. What occurred at Albany on the 19th of March? A. One 
thing T sav\^ or knev\^ of letters passing — some letters passing 
between Mr. Kendall, Mr. Stilwell and Mr. Lewis in the mean- 
tinne, that's all. I file all letters personally. I saw all letters 
that came in to Mr. Kendall and the letter book is in my charge, 
and I generally see and did see those letters. 

Q. We will get at that a little later. JSTow I Avant to get down 
to the transactions of March 19tk at Albany. What time did you 
get here on that day? A. About 11 :30. 

Q. You and Mr. Kendall came together ? A. Yes, sir. 



248 

Q. Where did you go after you arrived in Albany ? A. Senate 
Codes Committee room first. 

Q. 'Now tell what occurred? A. Mr. Stilwell was not there, 
and we went to the Senate. I am not positive whether it was in 
session, or whether there was a hearing on that day. I wouldn't 
state positively, but Mr. Stilwell was there, as I recollect, and 
I saw him a moment. He came out and shook hands with us; 
also spoke to another gentleman who was standing alongside, as 
I remember, on that day, and I think Mr. Kendall — he made 
arrangements — they did make arrangements for having lunch 
together that day. 

Q. Who? A. Mr. Kendall and Mr. Stilwell. 

Q. Did they have lunch together ? A. Yes, I was present. 

Q. Were you present? A. I was. 

Q. Was Lewis there ? A. I will tell you how he was there. 

Q. Yes. A. We met Mr. Stilwell at recess, or very shortly 
after, I think. We Vvent do^vn to the Codes Committee from 
there. He came in. 1 think we were waiting down there 
and the three of us went to the Capitol restaurant together. 
As we went in the room, Mr. Lewis was seated at a table right 
at the entrance, a round table, by himself. There were no other 
tables vacant right in that vicinity, so v/e sat down with him, and 
he had already ordered when we sat down. He had placed his 
order, and the order came a very few moments after we sat down. 

Q. Mr. Kendall spoke before the Codes Committee that after- 
noon ? A. He did. 

Q. On this bill 1188? A. He did. 

Q. Was there anything said in that hearing about a brief by 
anybody ? A. There was. 

Q. State what it was ? A. At the beginning of the hearing 
there was some discussion as to who should speak first. Finally 
it was decided the opposition should speak, as was the usual 
custom, apparent. Mr. Taylor, the son — Mr. Milburn, I should 
say, the son of the Mr. Milburn, he spoke in the joint hearing on 
the 26th of February — he was present and said he represented 
the Stock Exchange, but that he would not make any lengthy 
speech, but would simply give briefs to members of the Com- 
mittee, which he brought up with him, and he produced six or 
eight copies of a pamphlet. This pamphlet was the same pam- 
phlet as had been sent previously to all legislators nearly ten days 
before, because we had had a copy sent to us. 



249 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that on the ground it is incompetent, 
irrelevant and immateriaL 

The Chairman. — Objection overruled. 

The Witness. — I subsequently compared the two briefs. They 
were identical. He simply presented the same brief as had been 
sent to the legislators by mail apparently ten days previously. 

Q. You saj^ '' we had had a copy of that brief." Who do you 
mean ? A. Mr. Kendall and myself, the office. 

Q. ]^ow go on with the statement of v^hat took place before 
the Committee ? A. That was practically all Mr. Milburn said. 
There was some inquiries regarding the status of the ISTew York 
Bank Company's suit, which My. Milburn replied to, and Mr. 
Kendall verified. He set him right in one or two places where 
he was wrong. That v/as all Mr. Milburn had to say. Mr. Ken- 
dall then spoke at considerable length. 

Q. Was there anything said about Mr. Kendall furnishing a 
brief, or about a brief being furnished for him afterward on 
the subject. 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that as incompetent, irrelevant and 
immaterial. 

The Chairman. — Objection overruled. 

A. You have asked a double question, as I recollect the ques- 
tion. 

Mr. Wilson. — I don't know the purpose of it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It is very innocent, I assure 
you. Yvill you read the question. 

Question read: 

" Q. AVas there anything said about Mr. Kendall furnishing 
a brief, or a brief being furnished for him afterward on the 
subject ?" A. i^ot by or for him ; nothing that Mr. Kendall was 
to furnish or to be furnished for him. 

Mr. Wilson. — That is at that time. 

The AYitness. — Nothing at all. Mr. Milburn gave the brief. 
Mr. Kendall had no brief at all. 

Q. AVhat was said about a brief ? A. I don't recollect any- 
thing. 



250 

Q. Were you or Mr. Kendall, according to any arrangement 
that was made with Mr. Stilwell, or in his presence, to furnish 
a brief or to have one furnished ? A. Xo, we Vv-ere not to furnish 
any brief, because there was no necessity for it. Mr. Kendall 
had spoken. 

Q. Was there anyone to furnish a brief at your request '( A. 
'No, sir. 

Q. Had you stated all that occurred at that time, at the time 
of this hearing on the 19th of March ? A. All in substance. Of 
course it took considerable time. There was quite a good deal 
said. Mr. Kendall went over the situation at considerable length, 
and produced a good many documents to refute the charges made, 
and the assertions made in this particular brief which had been 
previously submitted, and which Mr. Milburn submitted again 
on that day. Mr. Kendall devoted his time principally to reply- 
ing to that brief, and he did it quite conclusively, I think. 

Q. He did it at least. I am not asking for v\diat he said. 
After that hearing closed, you and Mr. Kendall went to New 
York, I suppose? A. Yes, certainly. 

Q. When did you next hear from Senator Stilwell? A. Well, 
you mean personally, or the Company or Mr. Kendall ? 

Q. Well, anything that you know about — had any connection 
with is what I want. A. We received a letter I think on the 
22nd, dated the 21st. 

Q. That was the letter of March 21st, Exhibit 5, State's, 
addressed to George H. Kendall, in which he says, in v/hich he 
concludes, " I will be at my office, 261 Broadway, Monday next, 
at 3 P. M. if you desire to see me about brief." A. Yes ; in 
this particular letter he sent a printed copy of bill No. 1188 
bearing a pencil interlineation. 

Q. Yes, we have that. A. Which I saw. 

Q. Did you call up Senator Stilwell's office on the 22nd ? A. 
JN'o, sir. 

Q. Or on Monday? A. Yes, I did on Monday. 

Q. That would be the 24:th ? A. Yes, the 24th. 

Q. You called up his office, did you ? A. Yes, I did. 

Q. Did you talk with some one there ? A. I did. 

Q. With whom? A. I don't know; it was not Mr. Stilvv^ell; 
he was out, they said. 

Q. Was Mr. Kendall at your office at the time when you were 
talking ? 



251 

Tiie Chairman.- — Let me see. AVas that 'phone message to 

Albany ? 

The AVitness. — IVo, to the J^s'ew York office, 261 Broadway. 

Q. 201 Broadway, the address mentioned in the letter? A. 
Yes. 

Q. That is the address you called np ? A. That is the address. 

Q. AVas Kendall at jonr place of business at the time ? A. 
^ot at that exact minute. 

Q. Had he been X A. He had been about three or five minutes 
before. 

Q. Did you know where he was at this time? A. He told 
me — 

Mr. Byrne. — Objected to. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out. 

Q. Did you call up tlie office of Senator Stilwell to inform 
him that Kendall was on his way down ? A. That was the pur- 
pose of my telephoning ; that is what I did. 

Q. You saw Kendall again that day? A. I did. 

Q. How long Avas he gone ? A. An hour and a half or two 
hours, I should judge; an hour and a half, I should say. 

Q. Do you know of a dispatch being received from Albany on 
the following day from Senator Stilwell ? 

The Chairman. — This is the 25th now? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That would be the 25th. A. 
Yes, I do. 

Q. This telegram '^ 15 is the correct number ?" A. That is 
the telegram ; I received it myself and opened it. 

Q. You received that ? A. Yes. I do not say that I receipted 
for it, but I was in the office when it came in. 

Q. Do you know of a telegram being sent from your office to 
Senator Stilwell after the receipt of that telegram ? 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that as being improper, immaterial 
and irrelevant. 

Question w^thdrawm. 

Q. Do you know of one being sent from your office addressed 
to Senator Stilwell ? 



252 

Mr. Byrne. — Objected to upon the ground that it is not bind- 
ing upon Senator Stilwell ? 

The Chairman. — Objection overruled. 

A. I know one was sent to Mr. Stilwell. 

Q. How was that prepared ? A. It was written by Miss Allen, 
I believe, our stenographer. I know it was. 

Q. Written on the typewriter ? A. I don't think so. I would 
not say. 

Q. Did you see it after it w^as written ? A. I have forgotten 
whether I saw it after it was written or not. 

Q. Did you dictate it ? A. JSTo. 

Q. Did you hear it dictated. A. ISo. 

Q. Or know its contents ? A. I knew its contents. 

Q. How did you know its contents ? A. I was out at lunch 
and when I came back Mr. Kendall, as I recollect, read it to me. 

Q. Was that before it was sent, before it left the office? A. 
Yes. 

Q. State how it was addressed, please ? 

Mr. Byrne. — I would object to that on the ground that it is 
improper, and no proper foundation — 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — AVe have it in evidence. A. I 
would not attempt to say at the minute how it was addressed, 
whether it was addressed Mr. Stilwell or Honorable Senator Stil- 
well, or Senator Stilwell, or how it was addressed. I simply 
know it was addressed to Mr. Stilwell and I know the contents. 

Q. It was addressed to Mr. Stilwell at what place ? 

Mr. Wilson. — This is somewhat important. Does he say that 
he did see the address on the telegram ? 

The Witness. — I said it was read to me. Mr. Kendall read it 
to me as I recollect. 

Q. Proceed. A. What is it you wish?, 

Q. I want the full address now, as nearly as you can recall it, 
the person to whom and the place. A. It was addressed to Sen- 
ator Stilwell at Albany. That is as near as I would attempt to 
say now, and I think the exact wording is this : ^' Five " — 

Mr. Byrne. — Objected to on the ground the telegram is the 
best evidence. 



253 

The Chairman. — It is in evidence. 

Mr. Wilson. — We submit because one man has put it in evi- 
dence where it is not competent that that is no reason why another 
should swear to its contents. We submit that they have not 
proved that this telegram ever reached Senator Stilwell, and 
under any rule of law that can be invoked, it is not evidence 
against Senator Stilwell until they show a delivery to him or in 
his possession ? 'Now, the ruling was that you would accept that 
for the time being subject to a further determination whether you 
would strike it out or not. There has been absolutely no evidence 
given here, not one word, to show that this telegram ever reached 
Senator Stilwell. The nearest that you have got to it is to show 
that it was delivered to somebody, to some attendant here in this 
Capitol; a telegram that on the face of it says nothing, means 
nothing, as indefinite as a hieroglyphic on an Egyptian monu- 
ment; an unsigned telegram. If it had gone to his stenographer 
or if it had gone to his clerk or the clerk of any one of them, 
that sort of telegram would have been — 

The Chairman. — There is an admission of the records of the 
receipt of this telegram in Albany. 

Mr. Wilson. — Certainly. 

The Chairman. — We will overrule your objection. 

Mr. Wilson. — Does that prove because somebody says they 
sent you a telegram that was received in Albany that you got it ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — In addition to that there is also 
this testimony, that upon receiving the telegram Senator Stilwell 
called up Mr. Kendall and wanted to know what he meant by 
that telegram; that is in evidence. 

Mr. Wilson. — There is no evidence except of the man that 
claimed he sent the telegram. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is proof — 

Mr. Wilson. — I ask for a ruling of the committee upon that 
question of law, and I appeal to the rules that you adopted, 
that the rules of the courts of record should be enforced. ISTow, 
I appeal to you gentlemen as lawyers. I dislike to do that. I 
do not know as I am in order in doing it, but it does not seem to 
me, and I am only speaking of course as it appears to me as a 
lawyer that there has been sufficient proof given here to admit 



254 

it. Certainly not sufficient. I take it that no lawyer on this 
committee will claim that that sort of evidence would permit the 
introduction of a telegram in a court of record. If it is simply 
because you gentlemen say why it is innocuous we do not care 
much about it, but we do not think it safe to let illegal and in- 
competent evidence be given here, at least without protesting 
against it. 

The Chairman. — We will overrule the objection. 

Mr. Wilson. — I don't quite understand, but I would ask the 
Chairman before you report to the Senate — I suppose when 
you do report as a fact you will have to report as a fact whether 
he received this telegram or not, and what I am anxious to know 
is whether there is sufficient evidence before you so you can report 
as a fact that Senator Stilwell received this telegram. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — We are not up to that now. 

Mr. Wilson. — You are pretty near up to it now if you are 
after the facts. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — We will proceed. 

Q. Proceed. A. The telegram read as I remember '^ Five for 
the thing as a law seems better than the present uncertainties." 

Q. You did not see the paper ? A. I^o, I don't think I saw it. 
I don't remember of seeing it. 

Q. Did you know of your own knowledge whether your office 
was called up from Albany that day after that telegram was sent 
out? A. ^o, I do not, except as I was told. 

Q. I don't want what you were told. Do you know of your 
own knowledge whether or not your office was called up the day 
following that? A. I do. 

Q. From Albany ? A. I do, yes. 

The Chairman. — What date would that be? 
Attorney-General Carmody. — That would be the 27th. 
The A¥itness.— The 26th. 

Q. That telegram was sent on the 26th or 25th? A. Sent on 
the 25th. 

Q. Was it on the 26th, then, that you know of communications 
by telegram between Albany and your office? A. On the 26th, 



255 

Q. Had you been sent for that day to appear at tlie office by 

anyone ? 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that on the ground it is leading. 

The Chainnan. — Overruled. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I am just asking the fact. 

The Witness. — JN^ot the 26th. I was in the office when the 
call came in. On the 25tli I was sent for. 

Q. You were sent for on the 25th ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At what time in the day ? A. Sometime in the afternoon 
late. I would not say exactly. 

Q. How long was it before you got to the office after you were 
sent for ? A. Well, I was upstairs on the third floor and I came 
as quickly as I could. 

Q. Was there any telephoning going on when you got to the 
office ? A. Mr. Kendall had the telephone in his hand. I saw 
him in the private office just putting it down as I reached the 
door of the private office. 

Q. But there was no coromunication in your presence? A. 
'None in my presence. 

Q. So that all that occurred that you have any knowledge of 
occurred on the 26th? A. Yes, sir, and subsequently. 

Q. ISTow tell us when that occurred and how it originated? 
A. You mean a telephone, on the 26th? 

Q. On the 26th, the telephone communication with Albany. 
A. Do you wish me to say about any arrangements or anything 
that had been made ? 

Q. Yes, sir, I want you to tell all about the arrangements that 
had been made ? A. The arrangements had been made on the 
afternoon of the 25th that I should be on the lookout. 

Mr. Byrne. — I must object to that. 

The Chairman. — Just tell what took place. 

0. Tell w^hat took place about the telephone ? A. It took place 
on the 25th. 

Q. We are on the 26th now? A. On the 26th I was in the 
office when the telephone call from Albany came in. I either 
answered it myself when it first rang or I was told Albany wanted 
to reach me — I was expecting — 



256 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that. I ask that be stricken out, 
" expecting." 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

Q. Go on. A. Let me get myself perfectly straight on that. 
I am wrong. This is not on the 26th but on the 25th. I am 
getting confused there. 

Q. It was on the 25th, the same day the telegram was sent? 
A. 'No, the 25th was on the day I was thinking some arrangements 
had been made. I would like to start over again if I may. 

The ChaiiTQan. — Yes, go ahead. 

Q. Yes, you may go on. A. Mr. Kendall spoke to me on the 
morning of the 26th saying — 

Mr. Wilson. — I object. 

Q. We don't want your conversation? A. Mr. Kendall told 
me to call up Albany on the phone, which I did and I personally 
attended to the call until I got Senator Stilwell on the wire. I 
was told to get Senator Stilwell on the wire. I did at the iSenate 
Chamber. I recognized his voice when he answered. Mr. 
Kendall's phone I had previously connected with his private 
office. At the same time my telephone was connected to my desk. 
The switchboard is fitted for that, for making the connection and 
hearing Mr. Stilwell on the wire and I went to my desk and by 
pre-arrangement listened to the conversation that took place at 
that time. 

Q. This was on the morning of the 26th. A. On the morning 
of the 26th, yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. Kendall previously had dictated to me — he dictated a 
memorandum. 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that. 

Q. Stop right there. We don't want what it contains. Had 
previously dictated a memorandum — did you have a memo- 
randum while the conversation was going on j A. I did not, Mr. 
Kendall did. 

Q. You called up Albany? A. Yes. 

Q. Who did you call ? A. I asked for long distance. I asked 
to get long distance. I said I wished to speak to Senator Stil- 
well at the Senate Chamber, Alban}^, and in a few minutes they 
called me up. Mr. Stilwell was on the wire. 



257 

Q. Did you recognize his voice ? A. I did. 

Q. 'Now, proceed. A. Well, the next thing, of course, is the 
conversation. 

Q. That is what v^e want. A. I prepared and did take notes 
of that conversation, took down the conversation as nearly 
verbatim as I could possibly do it. 

Q. Have you the notes that you took ? A. Yes. 

Q. Where are they ? A. I made a memorandum, wrote it out 
on the typewriter immediately after. I have that memorandum. 

Q. Will you produce it ? A. Yes, I have it in my pocket 
(witness produces memorandum). 

Q. State first all you recall taking place, stating who was 
speaking ? 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to this on the ground that it is incom- 
petent, irrelevant and immaterial and not the best evidence. 

Q. I want your recollection first. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. Go ahead and give the best 
recollection you have. 

The Witness. — That is, state the conversation ; that is what 
you mean, is it not ? 

Q. Just go on, tell how it started, who said anything and 
follow it up. A. May I read the memorandum I made at that 
time? 

Q. Give your recollections first? A. I do not attempt to 
recollect every word, verbatim, naturally. 

Q. Do the very best you can. A. Mr. Kendall asks if Senator 
Stilwell was talking. He said he was. 

Q. Wait a moment. The start of the conversation first. A. 
The start of the conversation as I recollect was Mr. Kendall ask- 
ing, Is this Mr. Stillwell talking or Senator Stilwell talking, and 
Senator Stilwell replied. It is. 

Mr. Kendall then said I have been thinking over your proposi- 
tion and I am not going to be thrown down by you at this time 
or any legislator. I have been fighting this thing for 30 years 
and I don't intend to be thrown down. I think he repeated some- 
thing like that. There was a long sentence there and I cannot 
remember every word of that. 

Senator Stilwell replied, Do vou think this is fair, Mr. 
Kendall ? 



258 

Mr. Kendall said, Well, I am not going to be thrown down 
anjwaj. 

Senator Stilwell said — in this first paragraph Mr. Kendall 
said I have a telegram, and am preparing a telegram which I will 
read to you which I intend to send to every member of the Legis- 
lature and the Governor, and he read that telegram or the memo- 
randum to Mr. Stilwell. 

Then Mr. Stilwell replied. Do you think this is fair, Mr. 
Kendall? 

And Mr. Kendall said I don't intend to be thrown down at this 
time, he repeated, in that telegram. 

Q. l^ow, have you — A. Just a moment. 

Q. You spoke about a telegram, Have you a copy of the tele- 
gram that he telephoned over the phone to Senator Stilwell ? A. 
You mean the memorandum ; not a telegram, at that time. 

Mr. Wilson. — I object to the attorney interrupting this witness 
when he is attempting to give what he claims to be a conversation. 

The Chairman. — Counsel has charge of the examination and 
will proceed. 

Q. I want to ask this question at this point. You spoke about 
his telephoning to Senator Stilwell the contents of a telegram he 
proposed to send out ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you have before you at that time the memorandum 
from which he dictated to Senator Stilwell ? A. 'No, he had that 
himself in his private office. 

Q. You saw it ? A. I wrote it myself. It is in my writing. 

Q. Have you a copy of it there ? A. Yes, I copied it off later. 

Q. Will you please read it now ? 

Mr. Wilson. — How can this witness know what Mr. Kendall 
had when they were not in the same office ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He heard them telephone. I 
want him to repeat. 

Mr. W^ilson. — How can he know whether he had this alleged 
telegram before him ? 

The Chairman. — Let the witness testify as to what was said 
with reference to this telegram, its contents, over the phone and 
what he heard. You state that you heard Mr. Kendall tell Sen- 
ator Stilwell over the phone about this telegram ? 



259 

The Witness. — Mr. Kendall had just a little while before 
dictated that to me. I left it with Mr. Kendall. It was rather 
a long telegram. I would prefer not to recollect. It is rather 
difficult. I made a memorandum at the time I put it down ex- 
actly as it happened. While I don't think I am able to give the 
entire conversation, which lasted five to ten minutes, I think if I 
begin to give it from my memorandum — 

Attorne^y-General Carmody. — It is competent for him to read 
from the memorandum if he knows that is what was dictated over 
the phone. 

The Chairman. — Has he the original memorandum ? 

The Witness. — Yes, I have that also. 

Mr. Wilson. — It is not claimed that Senator Stilwell had any 
memorandum of it at the other end. 

The Chairman. — 'No. 

Mr. Wilson. — He would have to rely on his records. 

The Witness. — I took it down. 

Q. This is the memorandum that was made by yourself before 
it was communicated over the telephone to Senator Stilwell by 
Mr. Kendall? 

The Chairman. — That is what I am getting at. Has he a 
copy of that original memorandum? 

The Witness. — Yes. 

The Chairman. — Go ahead. 

Senator Blauvelt. — Which he prepared and delivered to Mr. 
Kendall. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He can identify the memoran- 
dum. 

Senator Blauvelt. — He can identify the memorandum, nat- 
urally. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — And state what was communi- 
cated over the phone. 

Mr. Wilson. — 'No. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is following the natural 
sequence. 



260 

Senator Blauvelt. — He can testify as to what was transmitted 
over the 'phone by Mr. Kendall and Senator Stilwell and then 
compare them. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — There is nothing to compare. I 
snpposo that when I should read tO' this committee from page 8 
of the evidence takeai yesterday — wouldn't it be competent for 
me to offer in evidence some place, if that is competent at all, the 
fact that — read page 8, and the contents of page 8 would be com- 
petent evidence of what I read. 

The Chairman. — Yoti are right. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — We have a written memorandum 
from which he talked, the contents of which he transmitted. 

Senator Blauvelt. — This witness doesn't know of his own 
knowledge that fact. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — x\bsolutely he does. 

Mr. Wilson.— :N"o. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He is the man who made the 
memorandum. 

Mr. Wilson. — This witness has not personal knowledge that 
the memorandiun which was in front of Mr. Kendall when he 
talked over the 'phone with Senator Stilwell — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He hears the conversation and 
knows the conversation. 

Mr. Wilson. — He can testify as to the memorandum he pre- 
pared and gave to Mr. Kendall. He can also testify the exact 
language Mr. Kendall used over the telephone in talking to Mr. 
Stilwell, and the comparison we can make. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The question is whether he 
must testify from his recollection as to that language. 

Mr. Wilson. — He can refresh his recollection from the origi- 
nal memorandum taken by him. 

Attorney-General Carmody — Then we don't differ at all. 
Then refresh your recollection from the memorandum. 

Mr. Byrne. — Isn't it so, that he should first exhaust his recol- 
lection before refreshing his mind upon that? That is the rule. 



261 

Attorney-General Carmodj. — He has done that. 
The Chairman. — I asked him that question. 
Mr. Byrne. — He has not testified as to anything. 
The Chairman. — We will straighten that out for yon. 
The Witness. — Do yon wish me to state this telegram ? 
The Chairman. — Just a moment. 

Q. Go on and state from your recollection all that was said 
over the telephone either by Mr. Kendall or Senator Stilwell 
without refreshing your recollection from anything first? A. I 
probably will not be able to get the exact sequence in which it 
occurred. 

Q. Yery naturally? A. I will try to get as much as I can 
recollect. Mr. Kendall said I am preparing the following tele- 
gram which will be sent ou.t to-day to every legislator and the 
Governor imless my bills are — the bill is reported out to-day 
before 6 o'clock. 

The telegram, as I recollect, is as follows: 

" Stilwell, the man you sent me to, to draw my bill, demands 
$2,000 — $500 a piece for four of his committeemen — to report 
it out of the Senate Codes Committee, and $1,500 to have it 
reported out of the Assembly Committee." — I do not know that 
that is the exact wording there — "I have already paid him 
$250 for drawing the bill." — It seems there is another sentence 
there, but I think it — " What shall I do to get justice." 

Q. Proceed. A. Senator Stilwell said that is not fair, Mr« 
Kendall, because I have nothing to do with the Assembly Com- 
mittee. Mr. Kendall said I — he said — Senator Stilwell said 
I think T can have it reported out as a personal favor by my 
committee, but I cannot do anything, promise anything in regard 
to the Assembly Committee. 

Mr. Kendall said I think you can. 

He said: "No, it is impossible, Mr. Kendall. There are 15 mem- 
bers of that committee and I don't even know when they are to 
meet. 

Mr. Kendall said I think you can. There are several — some 
members are favorable to us and there is a comity of interests and 
imless that is reported out of both committees within 24 hours — 
or by 6 o'clock, something like that-— I shall se^id t^ie telegram. 



262 

Mr. Stilwell said Mr. Kendall that is impossible. You might 
just as well know it now, as I can do nothing with them. I will 
see what I can do with my committee. 

Mr. Kendall said call me up in 15 minutes, telling me what you 
want to do. 

Mr. Stilwell then repeated that it was impossible and he didn't 
know anything about the Assembly Committee. 

Mr. Kendall said very well, I will let the telegram go. 

Senator Stilwell said I will sec what I can do. 

Mr. Kendall said very well. 

I think that is all and that is the way the conversation ended. 
There is some more but I cannot remember it all. 

Q. Is that' the end of it? A. That is the last of the conversa- 
tion. Mr. Kendall said call me up. Call me up at 2 o'clock and 
Senator Stilwell said, Very well. 

Q. That was the last that day, was it? A. That is all I can 
recollect. 

Q. What time of day was this conversation. A. This conver- 
sation I was telling you all about was 10:30, sometime in the 
morning. 

Q. Did you hear any conversation later in that day over the 
phone? A. Yes, I did; about half-past 1. 

Q. Before we get to that I ask you if you have or if you made 
at that time a memorandum of this conversation, leaving out the 
telegram? A. I did, immediately after from notes I took. 

Q. State to the committee how you made it ? A. I dictated it 
to Miss Allen on a machine, our stenographer, from what I had 
written out immediately after. 

Q. What did you dictate? A. From what I wrote as I had 
heard the conversation over the phone. 

Q. You wrote something while the conversation was goin^g on ? 
A. I wrote it practically all out. I think I missed once in a 
while a sentence or two in it. 

Q. Well, I wish you would state to the committee how fully 
you got that conversation in your notes. A. Almost nothing. 
What was omitted was only some sparring back and fourth. 
'' This Mr. Kendall ? " Starting the telephone and possibly one 
or two replies that I didn't get. 

Q. I ask you to refresh your recollection from that memoran- 
dum and state to the committee whether there was anything fur- 



2G3 

ther said over the 'plioiie. A. Do I iniJerstaiid I can read the 
memorandum as prepared? 

Q. Refresh yonr recollection^ A. C^nn I read it verbatim, as 
I have it here ? 

Mr. Wilson. — We object to that as ntterlv incompetent and 
imj)roper. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

]\ir. Wilson. — Memorandums cannot be used for that purpose, 
as I understand the law. 

Q. You are permitted to read ? A. ^^ Mr. Kendall '' — 

Mr. AVilson.— It is a memorandum made by himself. 

The Chairman. — You made this memorandum at the time that 
the conversation was going on ? 

The AVitness. — This one I hold in ni}' hand. 

The Chairman. — That is the one you hold in your hand ? 

The Witness. — The one I hold in my hand is made immediately 
after. 

The Chairman. — Dictated from notes made at the time you 
heard the telephone ? 

The Witness.— It is a copy of them. 

The Chairman. — Where are the original notes you made ? 

The Witness. — Right here (indicating). 

The Chairman. — We would like to see those. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes, produce those. 

(Witness produces notes referred to.) 

By Senator McClelland : 

Q. Are those made at the time - — the first notes made ? A. 
With my right hand as I listened with the left. 

Q. Made at the time ? A. Simultaneously with my listening. 

Mr. Wilson. — May I see those notes ? 

(Mr. Carmody hands notes to Mr. Wilson.) 

...The. Witness. — -May I explain. I went through those notes 
afterwards and put in those, letters there, S. and K.^, because. I 
did not stop at the time to put it down. 



264 

Attorney-General Carmody. — ^May I have these notes. It 
seems to me they have been sufficiently examined to base any 
objection. 

The Chairman. — Yes. AYe want to hurry along with this. 

(Attorney-General Carmody hands notes to witness.) 

Q. l^ow, proceed and tell us what was said, without the notes ? 

Mr. Wilson. — We object to that as incompetent at this time. 
We understood the rule as to the use of memorandums was this : 
If a witness testifies that he cannot recollect of his independent 
recollection what occurs, who testifies he made notes at the tim(3 
and by the aid of his notes he can refresh his recollection, then 
he may refresh his recollection from the notes and then state. 1 
know of no other way that a memorandum can be used. 

The Chairman. — I understand it. 

Mr. Wilson. — What is the proposition here ? That this man 
sat at the telephone and listened to a conversation ; that he made 
certain notes of what he claims was said then and so on, as well 
as he could ; that he then sat doA^m with himself and with the 
help of his memory and with the help of his notes he wrote out 
and constructed a conversation which he thinks is the conversation 
that took place. 

The Chairman. — I don't understand it that way. He states 
he had the telephone instrument to his ears in his left hand, I 
think he said, and was writing out what he heard on the 'phone 
with his right, and then copied from these notes. 

Mr. Wilson. — I understand it. I understand it is perfectly 
proper for him to ask him, having exhausted his recollection of 
the conversation, to examine his notes and see if he can refresh 
his recollection by his notes as to any further conversation, and if 
he thinks he can so state — 

Attorney-General Carmody.— Isn't that precisely what we are 
doing? - - 

The Chairman.— Proceed. 

Mr. W^ilson. — If that is so, then there is no objection to it. 

The Witness.— This gets everything chronologically. And 
while I think I made the statements exactly of what oc-curred, this 
keeps then] in their c-lw'ouological order. 



265 

Q. You have said you made it i A. Yes. 

Q. See if you can refresh your recollection from your notes on 
anything further. 

Senator McClelland. — This is chronologically, as the conversa- 
tion was over the 'phone, was carried on, he took the notes. 

The \Yitness. — This is almost verbatim. Xot absolutely. Once 
in a while I missed a few words, mostly short sentences, that kind. 
I copied it afterwards, on March 26th. 

Mr. Wilson. — Do you find anything in them that refreshes your 
recollection ? 

The Witness. — A great deal. As I understand it, I am to read 
my memorandiun. 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

(). I don't care what you do with it, if it refreshes your recol- 
lection as to something which occurred that you testified to. Did 
you find any such thing after reading over that memorandum? 
A. AVhy, yes. 

Q. Tell us i A. Many things in it. 

Q. Go on and give us, beginning on the first page ? A. '' Sen- 
ator, I have been "' — 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to this. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — How many objections are you 
going to have? This is the — 

The Chairman. — Let the witness read over tlie memorandum 
and if there is anything in there that he hasn't stated let him state 
it. Read it over and state anything you have not stated. 

( Wi tness exa mines memorandum ) . 

The AVitness. — There are many things here that refresh my 
memory. 

The Chairman. — Go down to the first page and see if there is 
anything left out on the first page. 

Q. ^ow begin. Begin with the first sentence. A. The first 
sentence ? 
Q. Yes. 

Mr. Byrne. — Is he to read from this ? 

Q. Have you refreshed your recollection so that you ca.n tell 



266 

the first thing that occiu'red ? A. As I started before, '^ I have 
been thinking over ^'our proposition and have decided that I will 
not be thrown down this time. I am preparing the following tel- 
egram which I will send to the Governor and every member of 
the legislature if that bill is not reported out tonight/' and he 
then read in the telegram, the memorandnm of the proposed tele- 
gram. 

Senator Stilwell replied, do yon think that is fair, Mr. Kendall. 
Mr. Kendall said, I am not going to be thrown clown at this time. 

Senator Stilwell said. You know 1 have been doing all I can 
for von. I have been friendlv to von all alons". 

Mr. Kendall says. Yes, but you have thrown me down now and 
I don't intend to be thrown down now after fighting 30 years 
for justice, to be thrown down by you or any other legislator, 
and unless the bill is reported out by both committees before 
night this telegram shall be sent out. 

And he said that is impossible, Mr. Kendall, because I have 
nothing to do with the Assembly Committee. .Vs a personal 
favor I think I eould get it reported out by the Senate Committee 
on Codes but there are 15 members of the Assembly Committee 
and I have no control over them. 

That is about all on the first page, I guess. 

The Chairman. — Anything on the second page ? ISTow, re- 
fresh your recollection. 

The Witness. — One thing I just refreshed as I turned it over, 
Mr. Kendall said the newspapers won't publish this if we tell 
them after the telegrams are sent to every legislator it will be a 
public document. He said if they won't do it — something or 
other of that kind I will put a sign across my building and across 
the Capitol, and in front of the Capitol at Albany. 

Senator Stilwell said well I will see what I can do with my 
committee. 

Mr. Kendall said, very well, let me know. 

Mr. Stilwell said, I don't know whether the Assembl}' com- 
mittee meets this afternoon or not, but I will see them and see 
what I can do about it — that is as near as I can recollect. 

He did sav something- — ^ he said I didn't want to send" these 



267 

telegrams out or put you in any hole but unless tlie bills are 
reported out today the telegrams will go out. 

Senator Stilwell said that is not fair because I have nothing 
to do with the Assembly Committee. I cannot control them. 
There are 15 members and I don't know whether they are to meet 
tomorrow. Mr. Kendall said think it over. 

Mr. Wilson. — We are getting a repetition of the same thing we 
had before. 

The Witness. — Mr. Kendall said I have a different opinion. 
You are a man of importance. I think here is such a comity of 
interests that you can get it out if you want to. 

Senator Stilwell said: That is impossible, you might just as 
well understand that now as any other time, because I have no 
control over the Assembly Committee. 

Mr. Kendall said I have been perfectly fair and square with 
you and you know I will do what I say. I am on the wire. Call 
me up in fifteen minutes and let me know what you intend to do. 

Senator Stilwell said 1 will call you u]) to-morrow morning. 

Mr. Kendall said: That won't do. I must know to-day or the 
telegrams will go out. 

And Senator Stilwell said again I cannot promise anything 
about the Assembly Committee. I don't even know they are going 
to have a meeting. 

Then Mr. Kendall said: Take down this telegram, and Mr. 
Kendall dictated very slowly, and Senator Stilwell replied, yes, 
yes, go ahead, all right, as Mr. Kendall dictated it. 

Mr. Kendall said if there is anything that is not fair or not 
true in there call me down. 

In the latter part of it he said, ''Well. I cannot say anything 
about the Assembly Committee." 

Mr. Kendall said, ^' Wo better let the telegrams go out -then." 

Senator Stilwell said, '' I will see what 1 can do." 

Mr. Kendall said, " Call me up then, at 2 o'clock." 

Senator Stilwell said, ^' Very well." 

-I think that is all of that conversation. .. 



268 

Q. What is the first remark that Senator Stilwell made after 
Mr. Kendall asked him, '^ Is there anything in this that is not 
fair/" if that is what he said. 

Mr. Wilson. — I object. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

A. Let me say exactly when that occurred. 

Q. T w^ant to get the connection. I want to get the story ? A. 
There is not any way I can tell about the Assembly Committee. 

Q. That was the remark he made ? A. That was the remark he 
made after taking down the telegram. 

Q. Xow proceed from there i A, I think that is all the con- 
versation. 

Mr. Wilson. — I object to it and move to strike it out. 

Mr. Byrne. — He has given all he knows. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Strike what out ? 

Mr. Wilson. — He says after Stilwell had taken down the tele- 
gram. I move to strike that out. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I have no objection to that. 

The Chairman. — Strike that out. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — But not what Stilwell said over 
the 'phone. 

Mr. Wilson. — iSTot what they say he said. 

Q. Proceed w^ith the conversation over the 'phone ? A. On 
that particular conversation there was practically nothing else 
except he said think it over and call me up at 2 o'clock. 

Q. What you have said now is that Senator Stilwell said there 
is not any wav I can tell about the Assemblv Committee? A. 
Yes. 

Q. I want to know what followed that ( A. Mr. Kendall said, 
well, then, I guess we had better let the telegrams go out. Thinlc 
it over and call me up before 2 o'clock. Mr. Stilwell said, Very 
well. That ended the conversation as I remember it. 

The Chairman. — The investigation is adjourned until 10 
(»Vdock to-morrow^ morning. 

Thereupon, an adjournment was taken to Thursday, April 10, 
1913, at 10 A. M. 



269 



Albany, K Y., April 10, 1913. 

In the Matter of the Investigation by the Judiciary Committee of 
the Senate of the State of "Hew York, into the Charges Preferred 
by George H. Kendall, Esq., against State Senator Stephen J. 
Stilwell. 

The Chairman. — Quorum present. 

The Chairman. — We will now proceed. 

Mr. Byrne. — I wish to go out to the telephone for just two 
minutes, I will be back in two minutes and I would like to wait 
until then before Mr. Field goes on. I want to get the line of his 
direct testimony. I have got a call from Troy from the District 
Attorney's office which is very important. 

The Chairman. — All right. We don't want to delay this any 
longer than necessary. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I want to ask Mr. Kendall some 
questions. Is there any objection to my asking them in your 
absence ? 

Mr. Byrne. — ¥o. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Mr. Kendall, take the stand. 

George H. Kendall resumed the stand: 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Mr. Kendall, v/as there a letter sent Senator Stilwell by you 
on March 20, 1913 ? A. A letter or telegram, sir. If you let me 
look at the book I can tell which. 

Q. I show you your letter book here. See if you can tell which ? 
A. I think that is a telegram, sir. Of course I cannot tell the 
piece of paper it is on, but I think that is a telegram. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It is conceded that we may put 
this in instead of the original, it it ? 

(Senator Stilwell examines letter book). 

Mr. Wilson. — Thank you, we have been looking for that letter. 



270 

Attorney-General Carmodv. — This is as follows : 

''March 20, 1913. 
'^ Senator S. J. Stilwell, Alhomy, Neio York: 

^^Am informed Milbiirn put in brief last night. If so, would 
be unfair to me if I did not have opportunity to read an answer. 
Will you loan me your copy or mail for one day. 

'' GEOEGE H. KENDALL." 
I offer that in evidence. 

Mr. Wilson. — If you will be certain whether it was a letter 
or a telegram ; would you be certain as to that ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I nnderstand he does not know. 

The Witness. — You can get proof here from other witnesses 
than me. Inasmuch as my signature is typewritten I have no 
doubt in my own mind that was the telegram. 

Q. Miss Allen would know about it or whoever took the dic- 
tation ? A. I think she would. She is available if you want her. 

The Chairman. — If there is no particular objection to it 
why not admit it ? 

Senator Stilwell. — We are very anxious to admit it. That 
is the very thing we referred to. 

Admitted in evidence and marked State Exhibit E'o. 16. 

Q. At one time w^hen you were in Albany did you receive from 
Senator Stilwell a book containing the names of the members of 
the different committees of the two houses ? A. Well, I did receive 
such a book and I know that it contains the names — 

Mr. Wilson. — That we object to. 

Q. Just answer the question; you did receive such a book? 
A. Yes, I did receive such a book. 

Senator Stilwell. — I object to the question unless it is con- 
fined strictly as to whether he received it from Senator Stilwell. 

Q. That was the question now. I v/on't ask for any other 
answer. 

Senator Stilwell. — I take it, General, that is what you mean. 

Q. Did you receive it from Senator Stilwell ? A. I did. 
Q. At what date? A. The 13th day of February, 1912. 



271 

Q. Where were you when you received this book ? A. He gave 
it to me in his office. 

Q. His office where ? A. Committee on Codes at the capitol. 

Q. I show you a book and ask you if that is the book ? A. That 
is the book. 

Q. I see there are some leaves turned down; when was that 
done and by whom? A. Senator Stilwell turned down those 
leaves. 

Mr. Wilson. — Just a moment. I object to the re-examination 
of this witness. We went all over this. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Oh no, this was not in at all. 

The Chairman. — Objection overruled. 

Mr. Wilson. — Let me state my objection first. This witness 
was interrogated when he was on the stand as to whether he knew 
any of the members of either committee. He swore he did not; 
he did not know how many men were on the committees. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He was not asked that question. 

Mr. Wilson. — He never inquired and he never had been in- 
formed. I know what his evidence was. Kead the testimony. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Allow me to correct you. He 
did not say that he didn't know the number and that he had never 
been informed. He said he didn't know any numbers on cross- 
examination. That is my recollection of the testimony. 

The Chairman. — We won't take up the time of the Committee 
with argument. The objection is overruled. 

Mr. Wilson. — He was asked if he knew the number on Judi- 
ciary — the number of Codes of both Assembly and Senate and 
he said he did not and had never heard. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I will repeat the question. 

Q. The question was whether these pages that were turned 
down were turned dovm when you got it ? A. I say those pages 
were turned down. 

Q. Turned down b^whom ? A. Senator Stilwell, and I never 
read the contents of the book outside of those two committees. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I offer that in evidence. 

Mr. Wilson. — That is objected to until he has been cross ex- 
amined. 



272 

The Chairman. — We will receive it temporarily. Go ahead 
and cross examine. Are you through with him ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — ^o. 

Q. Did you keep this hook in your possession from that time? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And did yon have it on the 24th and 25th of March ? A. 
1913, yes/ sir. 

Q. What is that answer? A. The 24:th and 25th of March, 
1913, yes, sir. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Have the Committee ruled ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Let me see it before it is received. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Oh, yes. There is nothing on 
it but the leaves turned do^vn. 

By Mr. Stilwell: 

Q. Do you know what that book purports to be ? A. I do not 
know what you call it sir. I think it is a list of the different 
committees of the Legislature of the State of 'New York. I think 
it is. 

Q. You think that is what that book is ? A. I think so. I 
don't know. 

Q. And you have had that in your possession since February 
13th last? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have read the contents of it more than once ? A. No, 
sir, never once. 

Q. Have never read it once ? A. I^ever read it once, only the 
committees that you turned down the pages to. 

Q. When did you read it that once ? A. At that time. 

Q. At what time ? A. Why the time when you gave it to me. 
. Q. The time w^hen I gave it to you, when was that? A. I 
think it was the 13th of February, or 12th, I think. 

Q. That was the first time you came to Albany? A. I think 
so, sir. 

Q. That was late in the afternoon? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When you were there I had my coat on and was leaving? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that is the time I gave you this book ? A. I think so, 
sir. 

Q. Where did I get that book from ? A. It was after — 

Q. Where did I get that book from ? 



273 

The Chairman. — Just a moment. Don't be too hasty. 
Senator Stihvell. — I want- the question answered. 
The Chairman. — Permit him to answer it. 
The Witness. — I think from jonr desk. 

Q. I beg your pardon? A. From your desk, I think. 

Q. You think from my desk ? A. Yes. 

Q. Did I go to my desk at any time after you came in that 
room and unlock it ? A. I do not know whether you unlocked it 
or not. 

Q. Don't you know it is a roll top desk ? A. I don't know. 

Q. Haven't you sat there more than once right alongside of that 
desk? A. l^ever sat there once. 

Q. Haven't you been in that room five or six times ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Haven't you been right there, consulting me at that desk? 
A. I don't think I have ever sat down beside you. 

Q. You have been in that room for two or three hours at a 
time, have you not ? A. More than that, at hearings. 

Q. And you have seen the furniture there, have you not ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. ^ow what desk did I go to to take that book out of? A. 
If my points of the compass are right, if that (indicating) is 
east, the west side of the room. 

Q. The west side of the room; that was my desk, was it not? 
A. I think so, sir. 

Q. To the left of the room as you go in ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you now swear that I went to that desk and opened it 
and took this book out and gave it to you? A. I didn't swear 
you opened it. You went to the desk and gave it to me in the 
presence of Mr. Field. 

Q. You know when you entered that room that night, I was on 
my way out of the room with my hat and coat on ? A. You were, 
but you returned into the room. You spent half an hour in the 
room with me. 

Q. Don't you recollect that I said I would give you ten min- 
utes, that I was in a hurry to catch a train for 'New York? A. 
You did say so, but you gave us about half an hour. 

Q. Did I leave the very spot that I was in, during the time that 
I had the conversation with you, until we went out of that room ? 
A. You certainly did. 



2Y4 

Q. I did? A. You did. 

Q. For what purpose; if you Imow ? A. To talk with Mr. 
Field and myself. 

Q. But you were right there by me ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did I at any time leave you and Mr. Field, until we left 
that room ? A. ^o, sir. 

Q. Then how did I go to the desk and get this little book ? A. 
I don't understand it as leaving when you went so small a dis- 
tance as walking 15 or 20 feet. 

Q. You did not call leaving a person going 15 or 20 feet away 
from them ? A. 'No, especially when there is no one else there. 

Q. Wasn't there any one else there besides you, Mr. Field and 
I ? x\. I don't recollect. 

Q. Was not my stenographer there, just coming out with me? 
A. She went out, I think. 

Q. Did she go out ? A. I think she had a blue hat on. 

Q. Is it not a fact that she was there all the time you and Mr. 
Field and I were there ? A. I don't think so. 

Q. Will you swear she was not? A. If it can be of material 
benefit to you — 

Q. I merely want you to tell the truth, Mr. Kendall, and 
answer the question ? A. If it is an immaterial matter, I swear — 

The Chairman. — E'ever mind about the mater ialty or the imma- 
teriality of it. Just answer the question. A. I think the two 
were passing out of the door, both with their hats and coats on. 
She went out and he remained, that is as good as I can say, sir. 

Q. Mr. Kendall, permit me to refresh your memory, that I was 
right by the hat rack when you came in, putting my coat on ; you 
and Mr. Field came in the door and asked whether Senator Stil- 
v/ell was there ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was I not in the act of just putting my coat on? A. You 
certainly were, sir. 

Q. I certainly was ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the stenographer was right there at the time? A. Well, 
I think she was, sir. 

Q. And you walked over to where we were, you and Mr. Field, 
up to the table where the committee meets ? A. Well, I won't 
dispute you on those details, sir. It is a small room, sir. I may 
have progressed 10 feet one way or another. I will accept any- 
thing you say, as your memory is better than mine. 



275 

Q. This book yon say I handed you that night is the 1913 list 
of members of Assembly ? A. I accept what yon say, sir. 

Q. iSTot members of Senate? A. I don't know what's on the 
outside of it. Yes, you are wrong, sir. You turn inside and you 
will find both committees, committees of both sides of the House. 

Q. You know what is in it now ? A. It comes back to me, hav- 
ing read it — hunted for the committee on two sides, v/hereas the 
caption of the l)ook is one thing, the contents of the book is another. 

Q. You have read the book through ? A. ^o. I haven't ; just 
those two committees. The title of that book, sir, is not right. 
I remember it now. See if my memory is not right. 

Q. Did you not state just a few moments ago that you had not 
read this over at all and did not know its contents and didn't know 
the members of the committee? A. Chop that into three sections 
and you will get three different answers. 

Q. Did you not say you had not read this book over since you 
had it, excepting where the page was turned down ? A. I said 
something to that effect. I don't remember my exact language. 
I will tell you what the facts are. 

Q. You have previously sworn, Mr. Kendall, I take it in this 
hearing, that you did not know any members of the Assembly 
Committee and you did not know how many there v/ere — Assem- 
bly Codes Committee, I mean. Is that so ? A. I don't think I 
have ever spoken to any member of the Assembly Codes Com- 
mittee. If I have, I don't remember. 

Q. E'o, but do you know how many are on that committee? 
A. I think it is 13, sir. 

Q. You think it is 13, but did you knoAv that ? A. If you will 
let me count up — 

Q. 'No, no. I ask you if you knew ? A. I must have known. 

Q. Oh, you must have known ? A. Yes. 

Q. And that kind of testimony is just as prominent as any 
testimony you have given ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I object. 

Senator Stilwell. — I withdraw that. 

Q. But you think you did know, because you must have known ? 
A. E'o, not because. I think I did know. 

Mr. Byrne. — I ask that it be stricken out on the ground that it 
is merely — • 

The Chairman. — Objection overruled. 



276 

Attorney-General Carmodj. — ISTow I offer that book in evi- 
dence. 

Said book was admitted and marked State's Exhibit 17. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I offer in evidence pages 51 to 58 
inclusive, being the pages turned dov^n. 

The Chairman. — The book is all in. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all, Mr. Kendall. 

The Chairman. — Jnst a minute, Mr. Kendall. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Here is a question asked by a 
Senator : 

Q. Why after the Governor told you there was a bill drafting 
department, did you not have your bill drawn there ? A. Because 
the Governor sent me to Mr. Stilwell and Mr. Stilwell took charge 
of drafting the bill. 

The Chairman. — Does that cover your question ? 

Senator Thomas. — Yes, and I would like to have the second 
question asked now. 

Q. Have you ever heard anything said, or seen anything 
written, or heard or seen any hint, innuendo, or suggestion that 
the State Bill Drafting Department was not entirely worthy of 
the confidence of any citizen who might want a bill drawn on any 
subject whatever ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It is quite a long question. Will 
you take it and look it over and be sure you understand it before 
answering ? A. AYell, must I answer this question ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes, that question is asked and 
it is a proper question. 

The Witness. — I think you will have to rest my case. I 
think my answer will hurt the rest of my case. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Please answer that question. 
Read it over and answer the question. 

The Y\^itness. — The answer, sir, is yes, so long as our Senators 
in Albany like Mr. Stilwell — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Wait a minute. You have an- 
swered the question. The question calls for an answer, yes or no. 



9.77 

The AVitness. — Well, I haven't finished 1113^ answer. 

Q. You say yes ? A. 'No, that is not my answer. I request that 
my answer be not cut in two. 

Mr. Wilson. — We ask that the Chairman compel this man to 
answer a question of his own counsel directly. 

The Chairman. — Now this is a question asked by the com- 
mittee — one of the members of the committee for his own in- 
formation, and the Committee wants to hear the answer of the 
witness, and I think it will save time. Proceed. 

The Witness. — As I understand the question is, is there in 
my mind cause for not having confidence in the bill drafting de- 
partment at Albany, and I answer yes, there is cause for lack of 
confidence, so long as men like Mr. Lewis and Mr. Stilwell are 
here. That is my answer. 

Senator McClelland. — Mr. Chairman, I ask for our informa- 
tion that the witness may now state the reason that he gives that 
answer, outside of Senator Stilwell and Mr. Lewis. 

Senator Thomas. — May I ask a question there ? 

The Witness. — Ask me anything. 

By Senator Thomas: 

Q. Assuming that there is a reflection there on Mr. Lewis, why 
did you give him $250 to draw your bill, rather than give it to the 
Bill Drafting Department ? A. I have never seen or entered the 
bill drafting department. 

Q. What is that? A. I have never seen or entered, or know 
really anything about the Bill Drafting Department. I did 
exactly as I was told. I went to the Governor and the Governor 
sent me to Mr. Stilwell, and Mr. Stilwell asked me for $250 for 
drawing the bill. I have since learned or inferred that it was an 
improper request. I paid Mr. Stilwell and that's all I know of it. 

Q. I now read to you, Mr. Kendall, from your testimony on 
page 18, the printed testimony: " He (referring to Senator Stil- 
well) got up from his seat at the end of the table where he was 
presiding as Chairman, and beckoned me to follow him, and I 
went out into the hall with him. and he produced from his pocket 
— his inside pocket, two sheets of paper, smallish sheets of paper 
a little larger than note size, and showed me where he had drafted 



2TS 

- — and by drafted I mean written a proposed bill for mj relief, 
and read it to nie and I said tliat it did not seem to me to be 
efficient to fit our case, to give us relief and he said it would take 
some research, that he was a lawyer, practising in ISTew York and 
was a member of a law firm there, and that he ought to be paid 
for drawing the bill. I said you surprise me a little, because the 
Governor mentioned to me that there was a bill drafting depart- 
ment and sent you to me to have you hear my case." 

The AVitness. — Sent me to you. That is wrongly transcribed, 
sir. 

Q. ''And sent me to you to have you hear my case and to have 
the bill drawn." A. That's right. 

Q. i^ow, am I right in inferring from that that you had in 
mind all the time that the Governor had sent you to confer with 
Mr. Stilwell and have your bill drawn by the bill drafting de- 
partment ? A. I really do not know enough about the ropes here 
to know what was proper. I merely did as the Governor told me, 
and then I did as Mr. Stilwell told me ; whether it was proper or 
not, you may decide. 

Q. The fact that I quoted there is what I refer to, '^ and send 
me to you to have you hear my case and to have the bill drawn " ? 
A. Those are the facts ; any construction you put on that, whether 
it reflects on me or anyone else that is up to you. I am stating 
the facts. Whether it was right or whether it was wrong, or 
whether it was consistent on my part, I do not attempt to say. 

Q. I want to know if you did not give that bill to the bill draft- 
ing department, because you were afraid they might do you when 
they could — A. Absolutely no. Mr. Stihvell had my utmost 
confidence. 

Q. 'No, I mean the bill drafting department? A. No. I 
really thought it was all right. It struck me later on the $250 
had not arisen in my mind as a matter of courtesy — 

Q. Excuse me, I am sure you want to answer my question, but 
you don't ? A. I do. 

Q. Did you have any suspicion not regarding Senator Stilwell, 
but regarding the state bill drafting department ? A. No. 

Q. Absolutely not ? A. Absolutely not. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That answers the question. 
Mr. Wilson. — I want to ask a question. 



279 

The Chairman. — One question then. We don't want to pro- 
long this thing. 

Mr. Wilson. — I do not care to be shut off, in view of what he 
has now said. 

The Chairman. — We do not want to go into any long cross 
examination in this matter and have this witness on the stand all 
day long. We won't get out of here for six weeks. All right, 
go ahead. 

By Mr. Wilson : 

Q. You had a conversation with the Senator that night about 
the bill drafting department, did you not ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I object to that as going over and 
over again — 

Mr. Wilson. — You introduced it yourself. 

The Chairman. — l^o, that came from the Committee. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It is not in regard to this con- 
versation ; it is in regard to a conversation he had with Stilwell 
which he has examined about thoroughly. 

Mr. Wilson. — In response to a question asked by Senator 
Thomas, he has stated his version of what occurred there. 'Now, 
I have Senator Stilwell's statement in writing here as to what 
occurred there. I am going to ask this gentleman if Senator Stil- 
well did not say certain things to him, and he to Senator Stil- 
well. If he admits it, well and good. If he does not, the Senator 
will swear to the fact. 

The Chairman. — Very well. 

Mr. Wilson. — I ask it now for the purpose of contradiction. 

The Chairman. — Very well. 

Q. Did you say to Senator Stilwell in that conversation in reply 
to his suggestion that you had better go to the bill drafting depart- 
ment, that you did not want to go there — A. Stop, sir. You 
can't make evidence that way. 

The Chairman. — Just a minute. 

The Witness. — There has been nothing suggested. 

The Chairman. — Listen to the question. If you don't under- 
stand it just simply say you don't understand the question, then 



2&0 

say you cannot answer it to the counsel. This talking back and 
forth between the witness and counsel is prolonging this proceed- 
ing, and we are trying to move along as fast as we can. 

Mr. Wilson. — I submit I am not talking back to the Court. 

The Chairman. — You understand what I mean ? 

Q. Was there talk between you and Senator Stilwell in that 
first conversation in which the bill drafting department was men- 
tioned ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who mentioned it first ? A. I said to — 

Q. Who mentioned it first, that is all ? A. I did. 

Q. You did ? A. I did. 

Q. Did the Senator ask you why you didn't go to the bill draft- 
ing department, or if you knew there was such a department? 
A. 'No, sir. 

Q. Did you not say to him that you did not want to go there 
because if you did, they would put some joker in your bill, or that 
in substance ? A. E"o, sir. 

Q. You didn't say that? A. I^o, sir. 

Q. Did you saj that in substance, or anything to that effect? 
A. No, sir. 

Q. One question further. At the time you talked with Senator 
Stilwell you had no suspicion of his integrity, had you? A. Of 
his not having integrity — I had no suspicion of his not being an 
honorable man. 

Q. Then down to that time, what did you have in your mind 
that led you to believe it was not safe to go to that department ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He answered that. 

The Chairman. — The witness said he had no suspicions of the 
bill drafting department. 

Mr. Wilson. — I understood him to say that his suspicion arose 
due to the fact that there were men like Lewis and Stilwell in the 
Legislature. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Oh no, he did not state that. 

The Chairman. — He stated that afterwards. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — In answer to that question, but 
this question is in a different tense. 

Mr. Wilson. — Let the stenographer read the question. 



281 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I don't want the witness to be 
put in any wrong position. He said repeatedly he went there be- 
cause the Governor told him. 

The Chairman. — Is that all ? 

Mr. Wilson.— That is all. 

The Chairman. — 'Next witness. 

George A. Field recalled. 

Direct examination continued by Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Do you recall anything else that occurred in the first con- 
versation on the 26th of March that you did not state in your tes- 
timony yesterday? A. I do not remember whether I stated this 
or not. I remember this was said^, that Mr. Kendall said, I am 
fighting the fight of my life, and if I go down I — I think he said, 
I don't care a damn if I do, — or something of that kind — and 
if I don't get these bills passed, I will be the worst licked man in 
Albany or anywhere else, or know the reason why. 

Q. That is all, is it ? A. I think. I don't think I stated that 
yesterday, and that is all I remember. 

Q. Was there a later telephone communication that day between 
Senator Stilwell and your office? A. Yes, there was. 

Q. At what time was that ? A. About half past one. 

Q. Were you there in the ofiice at that time? A. Yes. 

Q. Where were you ? A. Why, I think at my desk. I am not 
positive at the minute. 

Q. Do you know who was talking from Albany? A. I heard 
a voice which I recognized as Mr. Stilwell's. 

Q. Was Mr. Kendall in his ofiice? A. In his private office, 
yes, or he went in his private office. 

Q. Were your 'phonciS in the same connected condition that 
they were yesterday or as you described yesterday ? A. They 
were either connected that way, or we connected them that way 
at once. 

Q. State what you did, and then go on and tell what occurred ? 
A. I did not make the connections myself, I don't think per- 
sonally, but my 'phone and Mr. Kendall's 'phone in the private 
office were connected together by my direction, at least, and I 
listened to the conversation which took place. 

Q. State what took place? A. There was some interchange of 
question, ^^ This Mr. Kendall talking " — something of that kind. 



282 

I don't remember exactly how that occurred, but Mr. Stilwell 
then said, I have taken a poll of my committee and everything 
will be all right. Mr. Kendall said '' Then it will be reported 
out by your committee." He said; '' Yes," — Stilwell said — '' I 
will now go over and see what I can do about the Assembly Com- 
mittee, or see the Assembly Committee about it, and Mr. Kendall 
then said, " Call me up as soon as you know, or later on, about it. 

Q. Is that all that took place? A. I cannot remember the 
exact words, but I have the memorandum of course. 

Q. Is that all that took place? A. That is substantially all 
that conversation there. 

Q. Can you tell whether that was a call you had for Senator 
Stilwell, or a call you made from your office? A. A call from 
Senator Stilwell to our office. 

Q. Was there a talk later in the day over the 'phone? 

The Chairman. — Excuse me, what was the time of that talk ? 

Attorney-General Canmody. — About 1:30 he says. 

The Witness.— 1 :30. 

The Chairman.— The 26th? 

The Witness.— The 26th. 

Q. Did you take the time of the call ? A. Yes, I noted it on 
the memorandums in every case. 

Q. Can you give us the exact time, as you noted it ? A. I have 
it on the memorandum, 1.30. 

The Chairman. — What was the time of the first call that day ? 

The Witness. — I did not get that down. I think it was 10.30, 
about 10.30, but I would not want to swear to that. 

Q. To the best of your recollection, it is about 10.30 ? A. Early 
in the morning. It might have been eleven o'clock, right in that 
locality. 

Q. Was there a talk later on the same day between Mr. Stilwell 
and Mr. Kendall over the phone ? A. There was about 4.30, I 
remember. 

Q. Did you make a memorandum of the date, of the time of 
that call ? A. I did. 

Q. Can you state from your memorandum or from your recol- 
lection, or from your recollection refreshed by the memorandum. 



283 

the exact time ? A. I think so. I think I put it down. I have it 
on the memorandum 4.30. 

Q. Where was that call from. ? A. From Albany. 

Q. Were yon in the office when it came ? A. I was in the office 
but not at my desk. 

Q. Did you get to your desk during the conversation ? A. Yes. 

Q. Will you state what took place and who were talking? A. 
I was in another part of the office and I heard the telephone 
bell ring, and as we were expecting the phones — 

Mr. Byrne. — I object, and ask that that be stricken out, ex- 
pecting — 

The Chairman. — Strike out '^ we were expecting the phones." 

The Witness. — And I went around to my desk and picked up 
the receiver and listened to see who was talking, the conversation 
had started, and I recognized Mr. Stilwell and Mr. Kendall 
talking. The very first part of the conversation I did not get. 
I saw Miss Allen with the receiver at her ear taking notes. As 
soon as I connected myself on the phone I took up the receiver, 
and I motioned to her that I would attend to it, so she under- 
stood, and she then — 

Q. We don't want that. A. She then put down the receiver and 
I listened, and made notes myself. As I say, the first part of the 
conversation I did not get — oh, do you wish that conversation: 

Q. Yes, A. First — 

Q. Did you recognize Senator Stilwell's voice ? A. Oh, yes. 

Q. 'Now proceed with what you heard ? A. First I heard some- 
thing about, I seen a party or that party, and he says it will be all 
right. Then Mr. Kendall replied, '^ It will be reported out of the 
Assembly to-day," or something like that. I will have to refer 
to my memorandum to see whether he said '^ to-day " or not. 

Q. Tell all you can without referring to it? A. Mr. Stilwell 
said, '^ It will be reported out of the Senate to-night and I think 
the Assembly also." 

Mr. Kendall said, '' Very well, I will hold up everything until 
to-morrow " — no, that is not right. He said, '^ When will I know 
about it." 

And Mr. Stilwell said, " I will probably know something about 
it this afternoon. 

Then Mr. Kendall said, " Shall I call you up at six o'clock ? " 



284 

Mr. Stilwell said, " I think I will know by five, as they have a 
meeting — I think — at four." That was all that conversation.: 
Oh, Mr. Kendall said, '^ Very well, I will call yon up at -^Ye.^^ 

Q. Mr. Kendall said that, " I will call yon np at five? " A. I 
think he did. I can refer to my memorandnm. I wonld not he 
certain abont that. 

Q. Have yon testified now to all that you recall, without re- 
ferring to your memorandum ? A. Yes, I think that is all that I 
can think of. 

Q. I ask you now to refer to it to see whether it refreshes your 
recollection any further ? A. I guess I gave more than happened 
there. In other words, I elaborated on that. 

Q. Tell us what did happen? A. The sentence I got was, 
" That I thought — " 

Mr. Byrne. — We object to his reading from his memorandum. 

The Chairman. — Look at the memorandum, and see if it re- 
freshes your recollection, and after it refreshes your recollection, 
you can state what took place. 

The Witness. — I got a subsequent conversation mixed with 
that. 

Q. Go on and tell what did take place ? A. The first sentence 
I got was, '' I talked the matter over with that party, and he says 
it will be all right." 

Mr. Kendall said, '' Then it will be reported out of the Assembly 
to-day." 

Mr. Stilwell said, '' It will come out of my committee to-night 
and probably the Assembly also." 

Mr. Kendall said, " When will you be in 'New York." 

Mr. Stilwell said, '' Friday." 

Mr. Kendall said, '^ Then I will call you up to-morrow." That 
is all the conversation as I have it on the memorandum. 

Q. What date was that? A. Three conversations, on the 26th. 

Q. That would be — A. Wednesday. 

Q. That is all that occurred that day? A. Yes, sir. I had 
these memorandums as they occurred, takeu down on the machine 
by Miss Allen in typewriting, after each one, reading them off 
from my notes. 



285 

Q. You have refreshed your recollectiou as to what occurred 
in the three conversations over the phone on the 26th. i^ow, is 
there anything that occurred that you haven't testified to over 
the phone ? A. I do not think of anything now. 

Q. Was there a call the next morning from Albany on the 
plione, that would be the 2Yth, or the next day? A. Yes, on the 
2Tth. 

Q. . Can you state at what time that call came in ? A. About 
10:30. 

Q. Did you hear a conversation over the phone? A. I did. 

Q. Immediately following? A. Immediately following. 

Q. About what time was the conversation ? A. What time ? 

Q. What time? A. Well, about 10:30, while they were con- 
nected. 

Q. Did you make a memorandum of it, so you know ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. You want to be as accurate as you can about the time. 
You will refresh your recollection from your memorandum and 
tell us the exact time, if you can. 

Mr. Byrne. — I would ask that the witness first exhaust his 
recollection, before beginning to refresh it from the memorandum. 

The Witness. — My memorandum does not state it, so I have 
to take it from my recollection entirely. 

Q. State what occurred ? 

The Chairman. — At what time ? 

The Witness. — Mr. Kendall and Mr. Stilwell were on the 
phone, connected in — 

The Chairman. — Did you know the voice of Senator Stilwell? 

The Witness. — Yes sir. Mr. Stilwell said, '^ I have " — or 
'^ Your bill was reported out by the Senate Committee last night, 
and the Assembly Committee had a very late session — had a 
very late hearing, and did not go into executive session, but they 
will take it up to-day, and it will probably be reported out some 
time to-day." 

Mr. Kendall said, ^^ Then, well will you Imow, six o'clock ? " 

Mr. Stilwell said, " I think about five." 

Mr. Kendall said, " Very well, I will call you up at five." 
That is all I can recollect. 



286 

Q. Did you make a memorandum of that communication at 
the time? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. ISlow have you stated all that occurred? A. I have all I 
can recollect without a memorandum. 

Q. You have the notes before you ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will ask you to refresh your recollection from those notes, 
and say whether you have omitted anything, or whether you have 
stated it as it occurred ? A. Yes, sir. One more, Mr. Stilwell 
said that the bill would be reported out. Mr. Kendall replied, 
" You see, Senator, I am in deadly earnest to get this bill passed, 
and Mr. Stilwell said, ^' Yes, and I will do all I can to help you. 
I have written you a letter about it." 

Q. Is that all the addition you care to make? A. Yes, be- 
cause I stated what else was said. 

Q. Was there anything said in that conversation about calling 
up Senator Stilwell later, or about his calling you up ? A. Yes ; 
Mr. Kendall asked him if he would call about 6 and Senator 
Stilwell said I think I will know by 5 o'clock. Mr. Kendall said 
I will call your office up about 5 o'clock. 

Q. Do 3^ou know whether Senator Stilwell was called up at 
5 o'clock or at about 5 o'clock ? A. Yes, sir, I tried to get him 
on the 'phone at 5 o'clock and Central reported that he was not 
in the Senate, in the Capitol, and I could not get him, and I 
called up again at 6 o'clock, and they reported the same; they 
could not find him. 

Q. You did not get him, you mean ? A. Yes, sir, although I 
made two efforts to get him. 

Q. That was all that did happen on the 2Yth ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was there any communication on the 28th? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Any telephone communication on the 28th between Senator 
Stilwell and Mr. Kendall ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you make a memorandum of the time when that took 
place, the hour ? A. I think — I am not certain about the hour ; 
I don't remember now. 

Q. Tell us about when ? A. I have it marked ^^noori.'' 

Q. Go on and tell what occurred ? A. Mr. Stilwell called up 
and after being connected with Mr. Kendall, said " The bill has 
been reported out of the Senate Committee or Codes Committee 
and is now on the floor of the Senate. It was also reported out 
by the Assembly Committee." 

Q. Was that all ? A. Mr. Kendall said, '' 'So I understand " 
or " so I know." 



28Y 

Q. Is that all ? A. That is ahoiit all. 

Q. Did YOU make notes of that conversation ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. If yon have testified to all that yon recall, please refresh 
yonr recollection and see if there is anything you have not 
testified to that took place ? A. Mr. Kendall said that lie had been 
informed, so he had been informed; Mr. Stilwell said '^ I wanted 
to call yon up and let you know that everything is all right." 
And Mr. Kendall thanked him. 

Q. Was that all ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that the last communication between Senator Stilwell 
and Mr. Kendall over the phone that you know about % A. Yes, 
it was. 

Q. And you have testified to all of them, have you? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Senator Griffin. — I would like to ask the witness a question. 
By Senator Grifim : 

Q. I would like to ask the witness whether he has written 
memoranda of all these conversations to which he has testified ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

■Senator Grifiin. — Have those memorandums been put in evi- 
dence ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I offered them in evidence but 
they were ruled out. I would like to have them submitted for 
the inspection of the Committee. They are the original entries. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I have not finished with the wit- 
ness yet. 

The Chairman. — My ground of ruling was this: The witness 
goes on the stand and he testifies as far as he can recollect of the 
telephone conversations; then he refreshes his recollection after 
reading the memoranda, and he states to the Committee what he 
has left off. I think the original evidence is what he has heard 
over the phone as far as he can state — 

Senator Griffin. — Mr. Chairman, so far as I am concerned, the 
written memoranda appeared to my mind to be the original evi- 
dence because it is from^ that memorandum that he has refreshed 
his recollection, and I personally would like to look at the mem- 
orandum which aids him in his testimony. I asked the question 
previously whether these memoranda were made in longhand or 
in shorthand. These are memoranda that were made at the time 



288 

of an alleged oonversation, supposed to have been taken down 
while that conversation was going on, and I think that they are 
very -material for this Committee to have before them. 

Mr. Wilson. — We will ask this if it is agreeable to the Senator 
that these original memoranda that he took at the phone be marked 
for identification and testified to by him as the originals ; then we 
ask the privilege of examining his original memorandas for the 
purpose of cross-examining him ; then we will put them in evi- 
dence for the benefit of the whole committee. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Hardly. 

Mr. Wilson. — Let us see — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Just a moment. You cannot 
have an exhibit marked for identification and cross-examine be- 
fore it is in evidence. 

The Chairman. — Yes. 

Mr. Wilson. — When was that rule of law passed ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Before you were admitted. 

Mr. Wilson. — It must have been. There is no such rule. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Let me make this suggestion, 
that these be marked for identification and we argate on them 
later as to their admissibility. 

The Chairman. — That is a matter we will take up in executive 
session. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — For the time being, the memo- 
randum is not admitted in evidence but marked for identification 
subject to being ofi^ered later in evidence. 

The Chairman. — Yes. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I would like to have these 
marked for identification then. This first one consists of four 
pages. 

Memorandum referred to marked State Exhibit 18 for identi- 
fication, C. J. B., and the three pages annexed are marked with 
the initials C. J. B. 

Four other memoranda are marked State Exhibits 19, 20, 21 
and 22 for identification inclusive. 



289 

Mr. AVilson. — Now, just a moment — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — They are not in evidence. 

Mr. Wilson. — It is not necessary that they should be in evi- 
dence. What we claim is this : That this witness upon the stand 
has testified from certain memoranda ^yhich he says is the original 
memoranda; sometimes he has read from it, sometimes he has 
testified from his own memory. E'ow, we insist, no matter what 
he may say or what the wishes of counsel may be, that he, having 
testified from these memorandas, that the cross-examiner is en- 
titled to see those memoranda so that he may see what he has 
been testifying from. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — You have not been denied that 
right. 

Mr. Wilson. — We certainly have. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — You have not got to cross-exami- 
nation yet. 

The Chairman. — That is right. Proceed. 

Ey Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. I want to show you exhibit 17. When did you first see 
that book ? A. I saw that on February 13th, the first time. 

Q. Where did you first see it? A. When it was given to Mr. 
Kendall in the Codes room, I believe. 

Q. By whom? A. By Senator Stilwell. 

Q. Who was present at the time? A. Mr. Kendall, Mr. Stil- 
well and myself. I am not positive whether his stenographer 
was there at the time or not; might have been. 

Q. It was given by Mr. Stilwell to Kendall or to you? A. I 
think it was actually handed to Mr. Kendall. 

Q. Y^ou observed that a couple of pages were turned down ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Were they turned down at the time vfhen it was delivered 
to you or to him ? A. I wouldn't be able to swear so, no. 

Q. Did you see that book afterward anywhere ? A. Yes, I 
looked it over on the way down on the train with Mr. Kendall. 

Q. Did you see it afterward"? A. Oh, yes, it has been either 
on my desk or Mr. Kendall's desk. I think I had it most of 
the time since. 



290 

Q. You produced it here ? A. I produced it here, yes, among 
other things. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Cross-examine. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Byrne : 

Q. Mr. Field, how long have you been in the employment of 
the ^N'ew York Bank 'Note Company ? A. 

The Chairman. — I forgot to give the courtesy to Mr. Lyon. 
Is there any question you want to ask the witness ? 

Mr. Lyon. — No. 

A. About 16 years. 

Q. How old were you when you went into their employment ? 
A. Between 18 and 19. 

Q. What have been your duties since that time ? A. Been 
many. 

Q. Relate them. A. I first went into what they call the bench. 
For two or three w^eeks I was upstairs in the engraving room and 
I also learned transferring, and at different times I have had 
charge of the printing room and general charge, finally, at differ- 
ent times. I occupy the position — the official position of treas^ 
urer and secretary. I was treasurer for a good many years, 
secretary for a short time and vice-president about a year and a 
half. Is that sufficientlv at length ? 

Q. Your association with Mr. Kendall, the President of the 
Bank 'Note Company — is he President ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Has been extremely intimate since the time you entered the 
employment of the ISTew York Bank E'ote Company ? A. Quite so. 

Q. The New York Bank Note Company at the time you entered 
his employment was a New York or New Jersey corporation ? A. 
No, sir, it was not ; at least I don't know it was or was not. 

Q. Was it incorporated under the laws of Virginia ? A. Yes, 
I think so. 

Q. During the time that you have been employed there you 
have been in the company most of the time ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Your relationship to him is that of a second cousin ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Your relationship with him' for how long has been of an 
intimate character ? A. Sixteen years — all the time, sir. Six- 
teen years I have been what I think would be called intimate. 



291 

Q. You say yon first came to Albany with Mr. Kendall on 
February 13th? A. This year, yes. 

Q. You came here on a train arriving here about midday? 
A. Yes, it was afternoon I think on that first time. 

Q. You immediately came to the capitol ? A. I think so, yes. 

Q. Had a conversation with the Governor ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And from the Governor you went to the codes room? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you find the Senator there ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You talked wdth him on that day? A. You mean Mr. 
Kendall and myself ? 

Q. Exactty. How long did you talk with him? A. About 
half an hour I should saA^ 

Q. Who w^as present at that conversation ? A. Mr. Kendall, 
Mr. Stilwell and at least his stenographer and myself. His 
stenographer part of the time. 

Q. Will you swear the stenographer was not present in that 
room at all of the time you were having the conversation with the 
Senator? A. I will not so swear. 

Q. You will not swear she was not present ? A. I will not 
swear she was not present all the time, but I don't think she was. 

Mr. Byrne. — I ask to have the latter part of it stricken out. 

The Chairman. — Strike out '^ I don't think she was." 

Q. Yv^as the Senator at the time you arrived garbed with an 
overcoat and hat ? A. Either had it on or v/as putting it on. 

Q. Was he about leaving the door ? A. He was not actually 
leaving the door. He was at least half way dov/n the room I 
should say. 

Q. Was the stenographer standing v/ith him at the time ? A. 
]S[o, she was at her desk. 

Q. AVas she dressed at that time with a coat and a hat ? A. I 
think she was, yes. Yes, to the best of my recollection she was. 

Q. And you say she was at her desk? A. Standing near her 
desk at the end of the table. 

Q. Standing or sitting ? A. Standing I think. 

Q. Give me your best knowledge? A. I believe she was 
standing. 

Q. At which desk? A. At her desk. She was standing near 
the desk she occupies there, the typewriter desk which is at the 
end of the table. 



29£ 

Q. Was the desk closed? A. I don't know whetlier it's a 
closable desk. 

Q. Do you know whether yon saw a typewriter in evidence 
or not ? A. I don't remember. 

Q. In what position were you standing in the room, as to your 
being nearer to the position the stenographer occupied or being 
nearer to the door ? A. I was nearer to the door. 

Q. Upon this occasion you say that there was handed to Mr. 
Kendall a book, which has been exhibited here as Exhibit 17 ? 
A. Yes, sir, I so testified. 

Q. Where was that book taken from? A. To the best of my 
recollection from a desk in what would be the lefthand corner of 
the room, facing in the room. 

Q. The lefthand corner of the room? A. Fartherest corner, 
lefthand fartherest corner facing the room as you enter. 

Q. Do you remember what drawer it was taken from ? A. 'No, 
sir. 

Q. Do you remember the manner in which it was handed to 
Mr. Kendall ? A. What do you mean by manner ? 

Q. I mean the manner, the action ? A. I don't think I noticed 
particularly; didn't place enough importance to note how it was 
handed to him. 

Q. Will you describe in what way it was taken out of the 
desk ? A. ISTo, I can't. 

Q. Was the drawer opened? A. Mr. Kendall and I were 
talking. 

Q. I asked you was the drawer opened ? A. I don't know. Did 
you ask was it open or opened? 

Q. Opened ? A. I don't know it was taken from, a drawer even. 

Q. Haven't you just sworn it was taken from a drawer out 
of a desk ? A. If I did I made a mistake, because I don't know- 
it was taken from a drawer. 

Q. That is enough. One moment. When was it that the pages 
in this book were turned down? A. I don't know. 

Q. You did not turn them dovv^n ? A. I don't think so. 

Q. You say you read this book on the train going do\\ai to 
^ew York? A. I looked it over; I don't say I read all of it. 

Q. Did you examine the membership in the Codes designated 
or represented in this book by membership ? A. Oh, yes. 



293 

Q. Did yoii liave a perfect knowledge, after you had read 
this Look, of a member of the Codes Committees in the Assembly 
and Senate ? A. I might have had for a few moments ; could 
not give them all ten minutes later to save my life. 

Q. Did you read these so that you would know the numbers? 
A. I merely looked them over to see if there was any one on the 
committee that either Mr. Kendall or I knew. 

Q. Did you know any of them ? ? A. I don't think I did or 
Mr. Kendall either. 

Q. This is members of Assembly? A. So it states. 

Q. There is no question but that was the book given you ? A. 
JSTo, I don't think so, because if that is the book Mr. Kendall 
gave Mr. Carmody — 

Q. ]^ow will you swear this book was never given to you or 
given in your presence to Mr. Kendall, after the 13th of Febru- 
ary ? A. Why yes, I am very sure it was given on February 13th. 

Q. On the first occasion you visited this city? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There is no question about that? A. I also had another 
one at a later time given me. 

Q. Oh, you had another given to you at a later time? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. When was that? A. Either the 19th or 26th. 

Q. The 19th or 26th of February ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. ISTot March ? A. ^N^o, sir. 

Q. And from whom did you get that? A. I don't remember. 
I wanted one for myself. I had previously given that to Mr. 
Kendall. 

Q. Have you got that with you ? A. N^o, I haven't it with me. 

Senator McClelland. — Mr. Chairman, I would like to look at 
that book, if there is no objection. 

(The book Exhibit 17 handed to Senator McClelland.) 

Q. How long did this conversation of the '13th take ? A. 
About half an hour. 

Q. You are positive about that ? A. E'o, about I say. 

Q. What time of the day was this again ? A. Between half 
past 3 and 4 I should say, to the best of my recollection. It might 
have been a little later, because I think we had — I think the 
appointment with the Governor was at 3 and we waited probably 
half an hour in there. It might have been even later. I guess 
it was after 4 o'clock. 



294 

Q. It was after 4 when you arrived there ? A. You uieaii at 
the Senate Codes room ? 

Q. Yes ? A. I guess it was. 

Q. You say you talked with the Senator about half an hour ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 'Now the second time that you came to Albany was Feb- 
ruary 19th? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You arrived here that day about what time? A. 11 :30. 

Q. On that day you went first to the Senate Chamber or to 
the Codes Committee room ? A. Codes Committee room as I 
recollect. 

Q. You did not find Senator Stilwell there and then went to 
the Senate Chamber? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You found the Senator in the Senate Chamber ? A. As 1 
recollect. 

Q. You stood at the rail, did you ? A. Probably did. 

Q. You say probably. Did you ? A. Well, we did at some 
time yes ; not very long — not very long probably. 

Q. ISTow this was the day you came here for the purpose of 
having Mr. Kendall speak before the Codes Committee? A. It 
was. 

Q. And upon this occasion he did speak before the Codes Com- 
mittee? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That room you say at the time that this meeting was had 
was full of people ? A. The Codes Committee room, yes. 

Q. That committee meeting was held at about what hour ? A. 
I think it started about 3 o'clock — half past three. 

Q. And after the committee was in session for some time, you 
have sworn that Senator Stilv/ell arose from his seat and he was 
at the head of the table, was he not? A. He was. 

Q. He pushed his way through the crowd that was there, did 
he ? A. I don't think he had to do any pushing. 

Q. Did he go through the crowd ? A. He did. 

Q. Where were you standing at that time ? A. I was standing 
at the back of the room, near Mr. Kendall — just back of Mr. 
Kendall. 

Q. And Mr. Kendall was standing where in the room? A. 
Standing almost at the head of the table, just behind the speaker, 
probably three or four feet. The room was not jammed. 

Q. When Senator Stilwell passed Mr. Kendall, you say he 
beckoned him? A. I didn't say so. I said I didn't see whether 
he beckoned to him or spoke to him, or touched him. 



295 

Q. You were close to Mr. Kendall ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You will not swear lie either beckoned or spoke to him? 
A. ISTo, I won't swear. I didn't actually see him — 

Q. That is enough. The Senator went into the hall ? A. Yes. 

Q. Mr. Kendall followed? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you follow Mr. Kendall ? A. I did. 

Q. What was done immediately thereafter? A. They walked 
up and down the corridor talking together. 

Q. How long ? A. Possibly ten minutes. 

Q. Did you see them passed in the corridor by others ? A. 
Oh, yes. 

Q. How many? A. I have no idea. 

Q. Any general idea ? A. Might have been eight or ten people, 
might have been forty. 

Q. That was during a period of how many minutes ? A. Pos- 
sibly ten. 

Q. Did you not swear that they were in the hallway for over 
twenty minutes, on your direct examination ? A. I^o, sir. 

Q. Did you see Senator Stilwell come out of a doorway on that 
corridor? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You did? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You saw him come from a doorway in that corridor there — 
that's the Codes Committee room ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At what time did he come from that doorway? A. After 
he had been talking with Mr. Kendall and Mr. Kendall and I 
were looking over a paper which he had given Mr. Kendall. 

Q. After he had been talking Avith Mr. Kendall and you were 
looking over a paper, you then saw him come from a doorway? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That was at the end or expiration of ten minutes, you say ? 
A. About that. 

Q. How long did the Senator remain away from the company 
of Mr. Kendall, after he left it, after Mr. Kendall had seen this 
paper ? A. Possibly 3 or 4 or 5 minutes. 

Q. Then what did he do after that? A. Entered the Codes 
Committee room. 

Q. Did he say anything to Mr. Kendall after he left that door- 
way of this other room? A. He came down and joined us for a 
second or two and I think Mr. Kendall then returned to him the 
paper he had previously given him. 

Q. You are quite sure about that ? A. Quite sure, yes ; reason- 
ably so. 



296 

Q. 'Now you say that on that occasion you received from him 
certain papers ? A. That I ? No. 

Q. Did Mr. Kendall ? A. Yes. 

Q. Have you got those papers with you? A. I am not cer- 
tain v^^hether those are the exact papers or not. I thought they 
were but I am not certain. 

Q. Then you are not sure you have them with you or in your 
possession any papers that were given to you upon that day by 
Senator Stilwell ? A. No, I am not certain. I have certain papers 
which Mr. Lewis gave me, later on, which I simply thought or 
assumed were the papers Mr. Stilwell had given Mr. Kendall at 
that time, but I have no means of knowing or don't remember 
v/hether they are the exact papers or not. 

Q. On this day, the 19th, you left Albany at v/hat time? A. 
I believe we went down on the 7 o'clock, the Empire, to the best 
of my recollection. 

Q. Did you leave after the meeting of the Codes Committee 
was over on these so-called moving picture bills ? A. And after 
Mr. Kendall had spoken ? 

Q. After Mr. Kendall had spoken ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you upon that occasion ask that there be any minutes 
taken, or any copies of the minutes taken of the speech made by 
Mr. Kendall before that committee? A. No, sir. 

Q. Was anything said about having those minutes taken? A. 
I don't recollect anything. 

Q. You next came to Albany on February 26th? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That was the day that you say there was a meeting of the 
joint comm^ittees of the Assembly and vSenate upon the Stock Ex- 
change bills ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When you first came to Albany, you did what ? A. We came 
to the capitol. 

Q. Where did you go after you got to the Capitol ? A. I am 
not certain whether we went to the Codes Committee room first 
or to the Senate first, but to the best of my recollection we went 
to the Codes Committee room first. 

Q. Did you find Senator Stilwell at the Codes room? A. I 
am quite sure not. 

Q. You then went to the Senate Chamber? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you see Senator Stilwell there? A. Yes, I am very 
sure we did. 

Q. Did Senator Stilwell rise from his seat and advance and 
speak to Mr. Kendall in your presence ? A. He came over and 



297 

I think spoke to both of us, and also to a gentleman standing near 
us. Came out to speak to this gentleman first I think and saw us. 

Q. Then what next followed ? A. He and Mr. Kendall had a 
conversation in which it was arranged they should go to lunch. 

Q. There was an arrangement that they should go to lunch ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At this time was there a man who passed Mr. Kendall, 
Senator Stilwell and yourself who was touched on the shoulder 
by anyone and spoken to ? A. I don't remember anything of the 
kind. 

Q. Do you remember meeting Lewis at this time ? A. 'Not 
that particular time but on that day we did. 

Q. You did not meet him at this particular time ? A. Abso- 
lutely not. 

Q. How long did you remain there after speaking with Senator 
Stilwell? Did he immediately return to his seat? A. Very 
very shortly. There was a session on and people were standing 
at the table — quite a large crowd there and he came up and 
spoke to us, and Mr. Kendall made some arrangement for lunch 
and Mr. Stilwell then returned to his seat. I remember Senator 
Griffin was seated at his left. 

Q. Did you leave the Senate Chamber after that ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You came back to the Senate Chamber ? A. Yes, two or 
three times. Mr. Kendall was waiting out in the Senate lobby 
most of the time. I alternated between the Senate Codes Com- 
mittee and — 

Q. When was it you were introduced to Lewis ? A. About 
half -past 2 ; such a matter. 

Q. Where was that, in the Senate Chamber? A. Senate 
Chamber, yes. 

Q. Introduced by who? A. Senator Stilwell.. 

Q. You were standing at that time near the rail ? A. ^o, sir — 
near the rail I had reserved and had our hats or something on 
the desks at the back of the room. 

Q. During all of the time between the first meeting with 
Senator Stilwell in the Senate Chamber and the second meeting 
with him in the Senate Chamber, you and Mr. Kendall had been 
together all of this time ? A. Almost all of the time, except just 
a few moments when I went down to the Codes Committee or 
back. 

Q. Did you continue to remain in the capitol all this time ? A. 



298 

Yes, sir — wait a minute. I remained — I did not remain at 
luncli in the capitol. 

Q. You are positive about that? A. Verj. 

Q. Have you anything by which you can show that you did not 
have lunch that day in the capitol, other than your best recol- 
lection? A. ^0, sir. 

Q. About half past two you met the Senator and with Mr. 
Kendall you' were introduced to Lewis ? A. Yes, sir ; I can tell 
you a circumstance. 

Q. 1^0, 1 don't care for that. You met him at that time and were 
introduced to him ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it immediately thereafter that you and Lewis left the 
company of Senator Stilwell and Mr. Kendall and went to the 
office of Mr. Lewis ? A. Yes, very few minutes after. 

Q. Were any papers upon that occasion handed to you by Mr. 
Kendall ? A. I think he gave them to me. Yes, he did hand me 
some. 

Q. Did Senator Stilwell give you any papers ? A. I don't think 
the Senator did, no. 

Q. Senator Stilwell didn't give you anything upon that occasion, 
did he ? A. I don't think so. 

Q. That was merely an introduction between you, Mr. Lewis and 
Mr. Kendall ? A. There was an introduction. 

Q. Then you went to the room with Lewis, in the Revision 
Room for how long ? A. I should say an hour. 

Q. Will you say it was not two hours? A. I will say it was 
not two hours. 

Q. Did you make any note of it at the time ? A. I did not. 

Q. About what time was it that you came from the Revision 
Room and again met Senator Stilwell and Mr. Kendall — A. 
About four o'clock — shortly after. 

Q. What did you do at this time? A. Sat and listened to the 
speeches. 

Q. In the Senate Chamber? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is the time that they were having the hearing ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. 'Now you. did not hear any conversation at all between Senator 
Stilwell and Mr. Kendall upon that occasion, other than this 
introduction? A. Oh, yes, there was some conversation. 

Q. General conversation? A. More specific than general. 

Q. Now, how many bills was it that you used or utilized upon 



299 

this occasion, to draft the bill which has been introduced here in 
evidence as the first bill that was introduced in the Senate, being 
1188 ? A. You mean how many different — 

Q. Copies. How many drafts or memorandums ? A. Why, I 
had in my pocket, or Mr. Kendall gave me at that time a bill 
which Mr. Lyon had drawn up, one which Mr. Kendall had drawn 
up — dictated to me on the train going down previously, one which 
I had drawn up, one which Mr. Kendall and Mr. Lyon and my- 
self had more or less collaborated upon ; a paper that Mr. Stilwell 
and Mr. Kendall had had when they were at lunch, I believe. 

Q. How many copies did Lewis have with him? A. He pro- 
duced some other memorandum after he got in the office. 

Q. He produced other memoranda ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was that memorandum? A. They were apparently 
proposed bills, or excerpts of proposed bills written by two or 
three different parties, most of them in longhand. 

Q. You don't remember upon this day having had luncheon 
with Senator Stilwell, Mr. Kendall and Lewis, in the luncheon 
room, or the restaurant, at the Senate ? A. I did not. 

Q. Positive of that ? A. Yes. 

Q. Do you remember the name — 

The Chairman. — Wait a minute. This is the 26th. 
Mr. Byrne. — Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember the name of the stenographer in the 
Revision room, whom you have testified made copies of the bills 
after you had drafted them? A. I think I heard it mentioned. 
It is something like McGraw, I think. 

Q. Was it Kearney? A. Yes, that sounds familiar. 

Q. You remember there were five bills typewritten? A. You 
mean five copies of the same one? 

Q. Exactly. A. Yes. 

Q. Do you remember what was done with those copies? A. 
Four of them given to Mr. Stilwell, and one either to me or 
Mr. Kendall. 

Q. Who gave you those ? A. Mr. Lewis brought them back. 

Q. Where was it that you met with Mr. Lewis and those were 
passed ? A. It was near the seats which we had been occupying 
all through the hearing. 

Q. In the Senate Chamber ? A. In the Senate Chamber. 

Q. Will you say that after this meeting in the Senate Chamber, 



300 

that YOU did not meet in the Senate restaurant, and there join with 
Lewis at a table ? A. I will so state, because the first time I met 
him was at least half past two. 

Q. Will YOU swear that upon this occasion, the 26th of Febru- 
ary, there was nothing said in your presence by Mr. Kendall to 
Mr. Lewis, regarding the payment to Mr. Lewis of money amount- 
ing to $250, for serYices rendered by Lewis to Mr. Kendall? A. 
I will so state. 

Q. Will you swear that there was nothing said in your pres- 
ence by Mr. Kendall to Mr. Lewis, that he, Mr. Kendall, wanted 
to pay Mr. Lewis in cash, and that Mr. Lewis replied: ^^ I do 
not care," or in substance, '^ For cash; this is a legitimate trans- 
action. I will take your check, made payable to myself. I will 
endorse it and send you a receipt for same." A. ^o, I remember 
nothing of the kind. 

Q. You will swear that that statement was ncYer made in your 
presence by Mr. Lewis ? A. I will. 

Q. Will you SY^ear that Mr. Kendall did not, in your presence, 
say to Mr. Lewis, '' I am Yery glad to hear that, because I am 
pleased to knoY^ that it is a proper transaction, and besides that, 
it relieYes me someY^hat, as I haYe not that amount of cash with 
me, but Ydll.be pleased to send you my check, as you say, upon 
my return to ISTew York." A. Nothing of that kind Y^as evev 
said; certainly not on the 26th. 

Q. You are positive of that ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you remember meeting Lewis later that day, after you 
had come from his room ? A. Yes, sir, I was outside. 

Q. And where Y^as it that you met him? A. In the Senate 
Chamber. 

The Chairman. — Before Y^e go any further. Counselor, you say 
that on the 26th of February there was nothing said in reference 
to Mr. Lewis receiving this check from Mr. Kendall ? 

The Witness. — ^o, I didn't quite — I didn't so state. He has 
given — the very language of the question, I say nothing of that 
kind ever happened; I said that nothing had been said about it. 

The Chairman, — What I had in mind when I asked the ques- 
tion was the dates. I did not know but that possibly — 

The Witness. — ^o, I have it well in mind. 

The Chairman. — You want to keep the dates right in your 
mind. 



301 

Q. Was it on the 27tli that the check was mailed to Lewis i 
A. Ves, sir, it was tiie day tliat letter was written, the cneck was 
made out. Though 1 did not see it mailed mjselt, i am sure it 
was. 

Q. The next time that you came to Albany was when? A. 
March 19 th. 

Q. Upon March 19 th did you meet Lewis ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where did you meet him? A. Oh, I saw him in the 
Senate Chamber, I stopped and spoke with him generally, noth- 
ing particular said — nothing said regarding anything tliat had 
been brought out, I remember. 

Q. Don't you remember that on the 19th that Mr. Kendall had 
a bill with interlineations in it? A. I think he had one that 
he had made some interlineations in himself. 

Q. I show you this (handing bill to witness) A. Yes, I think 
that is the bill. 

Q. Does that refresh your recollection ? A. I think that is the 
one. 

Q. Is that his handwriting? A. That is his handwriting. 

Q. Do you remember seeing this bill given to Mr. Lewis on 
the 19th of March? A. iSTo. InTo, I don't remember it. 

Q. I asked you did you see it given to him ? A. ^N'o, I don't 
think I did. 

Q. Did you see Mr. Kendall in conversation with Mr. Lewis 
on this, occasion ? A. Only while we were at lunch. 

Q. Will you swear you didn't have a conversation with Mr. 
Lewis, in the presence of Mr. Kendall, in which there was a 
statement made by Mr. Lewis, that he did not believe that at 
this time there should be an amendment, because it would impede 
the progress of the bill and its passage? A. Soonething of that 
kind might have been said at lunch. 

Q. I didn't ask you if it might have been said, but was it 
said ? A. 'Not in the exact words you state. 

Q. In substance ? A. I wouldn't swear it wasn't said. There 
was some discussion at lunch, and I would not say that Lewis 
said that. It might have been said by Mr. Stilwell. 

Q. Who said it, to the best of your recollection; was it said 
by Mr. Lewis, or by Mr. Stilwell ? A. To the best of my recol- 
lection, I would say that it was said by Mr. Lewis, substantially 
that. 

Q. That is, to the best of your recollection, it was said by Mr. 
Lewis ? A. I think that. 



302 

Q. Did you go with him on this occasion to any room for the 
purpose of drafting or attempting to draft any amendment ? A. 
]^o. 

Q. Did you say anything to him about wanting to assist him 
in the drafting of an amendment ? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. Do you remember that Lewis said that attempting to im- 
pose penalties was rather a dangerous thing, as the law was not 
inclined to favor penalties ? A. I remember Lewis said some- 
thing of that kind to me, but my recollection was it was on the 
26th, and we were drawing the bill. I wanted to get the penalty 
in. 

Q. You wanted to get the penalty in ? A. Yes. 

Q. You had .spoken to him about getting this penalty in ? A. 
Oh, yes. Mr. Kendall wanted it, and tried to get it in at the 
time. 

Q. You wanted a civil penalty ? A. Yes, we wanted the right 
to a civil suit put in the bill in some way. 

Q. Do you remember also at that time Mr. Stilwell said he 
didn't have in mind just exactly what language could be used, 
and there would be a grave question arise as to constitutionality ? 
A. There was something of that kind said at the lunch. 

Q. At the lunch ? A. Yes, we were discussing it. 

Q. At the lunch ? A. Yes. 

Q. This was the only time you ever had lunch with Lewis? 
A. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. — This was March — 

The Witness. — ^Nineteenth. 

Mr. Byrne. — This was March 19th. 

Q. Did you agree with Lewis in that the matter should be 
permitted to rest in its present condition, that is in the condition 
the original bill was in ? A. ISTo, sir. 

Q. You didn't? A. No-, I didn't agree to anything. On 
March 19 th, you mean. 

Q. Exactly, on March 19th ? A. I didn't do any agreeing at 
all. 

Q. You didn't. Did you hear Mr. Kendall? A. No, because 
he didn't, he was not satisfied with the way it was. I know that. 

Q. Do you remember that at any time on March 19th, there was 
anything said by Mr. Kendall to Mr. Lewis as to the satisfaction 
that Mr. Kendall had as to the drawing of the bill? A. No. 



303 

Mr. Kendall did not, except lie expressed some slight dissatis- 
faction with it, becanse he didn't think it went far enough. 

Q. Did Mr. Kendall say to Lewis that he had decided that 
time was not of much importance, or vital importance, and he 
would have the bill amended? A. No, I don't remember any- 
thing of the sort. 

Q. Do you remember Lewis said to Mr. Kendall, in your 
presence, that he was willing to draft such an amendment, if Mr. 
Kendall desired it? A. 'No, he didn't make any statement like 
that. 

Q. Now, you say that, getting through with Lewis, that you 
telephoned to Lewis from New York city from your office there ? 
A. You mean — at a later date ? 

Q. At a later date. A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What time was that you telephoned to him? A. The date 
you mean ? 

Q. Yes. A. It was on Saturday, I guess the 2 2d. 

Q. On Saturday, the 22d of February ? A. March. 

Q. Are you sure that you — A. Wait just a minute, let me 
correct myself there. No, it was on March — it was on Febru- 
ary 29th, the telephoning — 

Q. February 29th? A. Yes. 

Q. This year? A. 1913. 

Q. Can't be any question about that? A. No, sir. I certainly 
didn't telephone in 1912, and not in 1914. 

Q. So you are sure that it was on the 29th of February, 1913, 
that you telephoned him ? A. Yes, I am reasonably sure of it. 

Q. Can't be mistaken. Now — A. Just a moment. Let me say 
I cannot be mistaken. I would hardly want to make a statement 
like that. 

Q. Well, it doesn't matter. You talked with him ? A. Yes, I 
am pretty sure it was on the 29th. I can tell you the circumstances. 

Q. And having talked with him on the phone, what did you say 
regarding anything in question that had come up between you, in 
this bill ? A. Well, let me state why I telephoned, and perhaps 
I can get everything straight. 

Q. I will. A. We had mislaid or lost the copy of the bill which 
had been given us on February 26th, and we had no copy of it at 
all, except I had a draft that I had attempted to correct, but was 
not correct, so we wanted to get an exact copy of the bill, so I 
called him up in the afternoon, as I understood he was in New 



304 

York generally every Friday and Saturday^ at least Saturday. 
And at my first calling up Mr. Lewis wasn't there. He later 
called up the office, and I merely asked him if he had any copies 
of the bill. 

Q. What did he say ? A. He said he didn't. As soon as they 
were printed he would send us some. That was all of that con- 
versation. ISTothing else w^as mentioned. 

Q. You are positive on this occasion Mr. Kendall did not speak 
with Lewis ? A. I do not think he did. 

Q. You say you don't think. Will you swear he didn't ? A. 
Why no, I won't swear that he didn't. He sits at the next desk. 
He might have asked some questions. I do not think he did. 
I am quite sure he didn't. 

Q. When was it you wrote Lewis a letter asking him to get 
some stenographer, and stating that you would pay him $25 or 
pay the stenographer $25 for his services? A. Why, it was some 
few days previous to March 19th. 

Q. Some few days previous to March 19th? A. Yes. I know 
I wrote him on the 10th. I don't know whether I said that in 
the March 10th letter or not. I think it was about the 16th — it 
was very — it was only two or three days previous, because I 
know I asked him to wire us if he could not do it, so I take it it 
could not be very many days previous. 

Q. Regarding these telephone communications of March 26th, 
you say on that date there were three communications over the 
telephone? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The first communication was by whom to whom? A. Mr. 
Kendall called up Senator StilwelL 

Q. That was about 10:30 in the morning? A. About that. 

Q. The second communication was when ? A. About half past 
one. 

Q. The third communication what time? A. About half past 
four. 

Q. Upon that day, were there any communications from Senator 
Stilwell to Mr. Kendall? A. There were. Two of them were 
from Mr. Stilwell. 

Q. Two of them were from him and one from Mr. Kendall? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Positive about that? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say you held in your hand — the left hand was it, the 
receiver? A. Yes, sir. 



305 

Q. And with your right hand you made these annotations or 
notes of the conversation ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Yon made those notes npon pieces of paper — yon made 
these notes npon pieces of paper that were joined together, were 
they upon a pad, in what form? A. Loose. 

Q. Jnst loose ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Those papers, or pieces of paper were situated where ? A. 
On my desk. 

Q. What part of your desk ? A. On the main part, the main 
part of the desk. 

Q. T\niere is the telephone situated in your office? A. You 
mean at my desk ? 

Q. Is it on your desk? A. It is fastened to a bracket and 
swings around. 

Q. Attached to your desk? A. It swings around over almost 
to the desk. 

Q. Were these pieces of paper held down by anything other 
than your hand ? A. Either a book or a paperweight. 

Q. Either a book or a paperweight ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You wrote these in lead pencil ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you put the date on these pieces of paper before you 
started to write ? A. 'No, afterward. 

Q. It was afterwards ? A. Yes. 

Q. You took these, and you wrote along just in the manner in 
which you had these notes here? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You continued to write, spelling out the words? A. Yes. 

Q. You sav vou put alongside of these notations, " K " and 
" S," and " S "' and " K " ? ^ A. Afterwards, not at the time. 

Q. ^ot at the time, but afterwards. 

Q. And you left a margin alongside of this paper for the pur- 
pose of putting those in ? A. Eor that very purpose, exactly. 

Q. That was your very purpose ? A. Yes. 

Q. And you did that at the very time you were writing? A. 
Did what. 

Q. You left the margin? A. Evidently. 

Q. Evidently true? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is there any question but what that margin was there on 
each one of these pieces of paper, and left there regularly, at the 
very time that you took these notes down? A. ^ot the slightest 
doubt of it. 

Q. And these are the original notes ? A. Yes. 



306 

Q. And you spelled out essentially every word that you took 
down ? A. I went over it and put things down, I corrected it im- 
mediately afterwards. 

Q. You wrote them all out in full, this '' Mr. Kendall " ? A. I 
wrote that afterwards. 

Q. Did you write the '' S " afterwards ? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you write ^' phone " afterwards ? A. Yes. 

Q. " Senate Chamber " afterward ? A. Yes. 

Q. You started here with this " Senator, I have been think- 
ing," and went right along? A. Yes. 

Q. ¥/ill you kindly read that just as you wrote it? A. Sen- 
ator, I have been thinking over your proposition, and I do not in- 
tend to be thrown down at this time by you. — I put in here, that 
was put in afterwards, the correction ; I wrote it at the time " by 
a legislature, after fighting the Stock Exchange for thirty years 
for justice. I will read you a telegram I am having made out 
which will be sent to the Go^'ernor, and every member of the 
Sen and Assembly." I wrote that '^ Assembly " out afterwards. 

Q. Where is that ? A. Right there. I probably wrote ^'A," and 
then after rubbed it out. 

Q. What do you say you wrote ? A. '^Assembly " afterwards, 
and the ''Senate" — I will read it. ''Before night" and Mr. 
Kendall read the proposed telegram to him. 

Q. Mr. Kendall read that proposed telegram ? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you write that in there? A. l^o. 

Q. You did not write that in there ? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. You had prepared that beforehand? A. Mr. Kendall had 
dictated the memorandum to me, and I had given the memoran- 
dum to Mr. Kendall. 

Q. Didn't you dictate the memorandum to Mr. Kendall, and 
not Mr. Kendall to you ? A. Absolutely not. 

Q. Didn't you dictate this so-called telegram to the stenog- 
rapher, and have in the office in writing before this telephonic 
communication took place ? A. Absolutely not. Mr. Kendall dic- 
tated it to me in his private office, probably half or three-quarters 
of an hour before this happened. 

Q. ^ow, you went along throughout this entire conversation 
and with a very few exceptions you wrote out, for instance, the 
word " committee," you spelled that out, c-o-m-m-i-t-t-e-e correctly, 
didn't you? A. It would appear so. 

Q, And you took it down in that form essentially as you have 
got it here, without any material corrections, until you after- 



307 

wards used this to elaborate — A. I made a few corrections t^e 
first thing I did after the telephone, I went through a few 
things, I had hnrried, to get it correct, and spelled them out, 
" telephone/' and like that. I corrected it the way I thought it 
ought to be. 

Q. But in the main this was all written out in longhand ? A. 
Yes, sir ; exactly ; Mr. Kendall was dictating very slowly for that 
purpose. 

Q. (Showing memorandum) Is this the next communication 
on the telephone? A. ^o, sir. 

Q. (Showing another memorandum) Is this it? A. ISTo, sir. 

Q. (Showing another memorandum) Is this it? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. (Showing another memorandum) Is this it? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That you also wrote out in longhand, did you ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. And you left a margin on that ? A. Yes, you see it. 

Q. Yes, I do; and did you afterwards put in '' K," or did 
you put it in at the time ? A. I think I remember putting it 
in afterwards, because I left the margin for the purpose of 
putting it in afterwards. 

Q. Your next telephone communication, taken do^vn in notes, 
is this one? A. Yes, this is it. 

Q. You did the same thing with that ? A. Yes. 

Q. You did not use the same form of paper for all of these 
notes, did you ? A. ^N'o, I did not. 

Q. Were these pieces of paper on a pad or were they, as you 
have said, separated? A. All the paper was separated, we don't 
have any pads. 

Q. But afterwards all of these communications you put in the 
" S " and '^ K " ? A. The '' S " and the '' K ". 

Q. On the 27th, you say that Mr. Kendall called up Senator 
Stilwell ? A. Yes, I think that is correct. 

Q. On the 27th? A. Yes. 

Q. That was about what time? A. About 10.30. 

Q. To the best of your recollection at this time, what was that 
conversation? A. Mr. Stilwell practically started the con- 
versation after a few preliminaries, and said, " The bill has been 
passed out by the Senate last night, the Codes Committee, and that 
the Assembly had a late session," I think it was, '' and would take 
it up that day." 

Q. Did Mr. Kendall say anything preliminary to this conver- 
sation that you have reported or stated by Senator Stilwell. 



308 

A. Oh, there was some intercliange before they started talking, 
like " Is this Mr. Kendall/' or " Is this Senator Stilwell/' some- 
thing of that kind. I don't think I even took it down. 

Q. Did jon, Mr. Field, issue to newspaper men a statement 
embodying certain acconnts of these so called or alleged transac- 
tions over the telephones, and also conversations had between Mr. 
Kendall and Senator Stilwell ? A. l>lo, I did not. 

Q. You did not ? A. l^o. 

Q. Then, if Mr. Kendall says that yon issued a statement to 
the newspapers, or to the press, of any character whatever, Mr. 
Kendall is mistaken ? A. You mean at that time. 

Q. I say at any time ? A. Oh, no, because I have issued some 
statements. 

Q. You did; I asked you if you did? A. I did, but not at 
that time. 

Q. I don't care at what time. When did you ? A. Some time 
after that, two or three days, perhaps, after the thing came out, 
after the interview of Mr. Kendall and the Governor, two or three 
days later. 

Q. You issued the statement, did you? A. I saw some 
reporter, and gave him a statement. 

Q. Did you go over chronologically, all of the events in this 
matter, as you have stated them here, and give them to the pruss 
in order? A. 'No, nothing like what I think you have in your 
mind there at all. I will tell what happened if you wish. Per- 
haps I can explain it, and make it clear. 

Q. ISTo, I do not care for that. I show you this exhibit, and 
ask you if that is a fair representation upon the building at the 
present time, of tha ^ew York Bank K'ote Company? A. Yes, 
that is still there. 

Q. ^ow, I ask you, did you say this : That in your opinion 
there are a thousand members of the Exchange who favor giving 
your Company a square deal, but that they are afraid to raise 
their voices against the Governors ? A. I think I have made such 
a statement. I don't remember making it at that time. In fact 
I don't think I did. That was on the 13th. I don't think I did. 
It was very much subsequent to that. 

Q. It was subsequent to this, this paper was published on the 
13th ? A. Yes, but remember, I have seen a good many reporters 
in the last two' weeks or so, and I have made a good many state- 
ments. 



309 

Q. Did you say this : '^ If we can get enough public opinion 
back of these men, so that they will feel that coming out and 
declaring their real feelings the opposition to the monopoly will 
win out ? " A. I never said that. 

Q. You never said that? A. E'o. 

Q. This is not a correct statement of anything that was said 
by you? A. 'No, I don't think that article has anything to do 
with anything I have said. 

Q. Will you read that, and see if it is not attributed to you? 
A. It so says, and some parts of it I might have said. 

Q. You say that on March 28th, there was a call to your office 
by Senator Stilwell? A. Yes. 

Q. That call came from the Capitol in Albany, did it, to the 
best of your belief? A. Senator Stilwell called up Albany once, 
to talk to you, something of that kind. You heard this conver- 
sation, didn't you? A. On March 28th? 

Q. Yes. A. Yes. 

Q. You have heard all of these conversations that you have 
testified about ? A. All that I have testified about, yes ; one I 
did not. 

Q. Will you swear on this occasion, March 28th, that Senator 
Stilwell did not say on the telephone, that the Assembly Com- 
mittee had reported, but without amendment of civil action ? A. 
I really think he did say that. 

Q. Mr. Field, I show you defendant's Exhibit 4= for identifi- 
cation, and ask you to look that over ? A. I have looked over it 
superficially. 

Q. ^Now, I ask you to run it down, and you will note on that 
page, " G. A. Field " ? A. Yes, I see it. 

By Mr. Wilson: 

Q. That is, you gave out the interview ? A. I did not say so. 

By Mr. Byrne: 

Q. What was the answer ? A. I see it. 

Q. Did you issue a statement to the press which was signed 
by you ? A. No. I wrote a memorandum which I gave to Mr. 
Kendall, which had all these telephone conversations ; it was 
written on the typewriter. I prefaced it by an introduction of 
what it was, and I signed it and gave it to Mr. Kendall, and Mr. 
Kendall took it to Albany with him, and I don't know whether 



310 

lie gave it out, or whether it came out from the Governor, or 
whether it came out from the Attorney-GerLeral's office, but it did 
com.e out. 

Q. You did not issue this statement above your signature? 
A. The reporters, many of them, called me up on March 25th, as 
there had been a dispatch received from Albany saying Governor 
Sulzer had demanded the resignation of Senator Stilwell. They 
wanted to know if I would issue any statement, as they had no 
further detail of it ; probably half a dozen reporters called at the 
office, and at least about that many more called me up — 

Q. That is enough. In these conversations upon the telephone 
Avhich you have in evidence notes of, you and Mr. Kendall were 
the only persons listening on those lines? A. 'No, at one time 
there was another, a short time. 

Q. You said Miss Allen was on the line for a few moments? 
A. Just at the start of one conversation. 

Q. Is it so that you have a knowledge of stenography ? 

By the Chairman : 

Q. Counselor, before you leave that proposition : On what date 
was Miss Allen on the line listening to the conversation? A. 
March 26th, I think the 4:30 conversation, as I recollect it. 

By Mr. Byrne : 

Q. There was a telephone in her room, was there not? A. It 
was in the main office ; she has a desk in the main office. 

Q. Is it so that you have a knowledge of stenography ? A. Not 
so. I studied it sixteen years ago. 

Q. You heard Mr. Kendall say you had a smattering knowledge 
of it, or a knowledge of it, and used it in conjunction with the 
usual longhand writing? A. I think he said he thought I did. 
I don't know whether he said I did or not. 

Q. Didn't you hear him say that you did, that you made your 
notes out of a knowledge that you had of shorthand and longhand ? 
A. No, he didn't put it that way. 

Q. We will leave that, of course, to the minutes. 

Q. What you are asking the witness is, did he hear Mr. Kendall ; 
he is telling what he remembers. 

The Witness. — He did say that I did use it. 

Q. You heard him say that you did use that ? A. Something 
to that effect, yes. 



311 

Q. You did not use any stenographic notes or signs, or char- 
acters of any kind on these things ? A. I have forgotten it en- 
tirety. I could not have done it to save my life. 

Q. You did not do it? A. I did not. I would not even have 
been able to transcribe it. 

Q. And there were none of these conversations which you heard 
.Mr. Stilwell having with Mr. Kendall, with the exception of this 
(;ue small fraction by anybody else in your office, heard by any- 
body else ? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. What was the size of your office force ? A. About five or six 
people. 

Q. Who are those ? A. Mr. Kendall, Miss Allen, Mr. Fisher, 
myself and sometimes an office boy. 

Q. How many telephones have you in your office ? A. There are 
three in the main office, and a small switchboard and one in Mr. 
Kendall's private office. 

Mr. Byrne. — That finishes the cross-examination. 

Ee-direct examination by Attorney-General Carmody : 

Q. I .understood you to say in answer to a question of counsel 

that during this first conversation on March 26th, over the phone, 

that ]\[r. Kendall dictated slowly, so that you could take it down ? 

A. We had so arranged. 
Q. Yes, that is the phrase. 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to his characterization ; let him tell what 
happened. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I am asking what happened. 

Q. Just tell us what arrangement was made, how it was made, 
and by whom ? A. On March 25th, in the afternoon, Mr. Kendall 
made arrangements with me to be prepared to listen to any con- 
versation that might occur on the telephone. 

Mr. Byrne. — We object to that on the ground that it is incom- 
petent, improper and immaterial. What happened between the 
two the day before, and as having been already gone over very 
fully. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

The Witness. — On account of the arrangements, I was more or 
less prepared — 

Mr. Byrne. — We object to that. 



312 

The Chairman. — Tell the facts as near as joii can. 

The Witness. — After he had made arrangements with me to he 
on the lookont at the telephone, I went upstairs to do some work, 
and was doing some work on the third floor. Do you wish what 
happened that afternoon? 

Q. Yes. A. I was called down between four and ^ve o'clock — 

Mr. Bj-rne.— This has all been gone over. 

Q. Go on, you are telling about the arrangement made between 
yourself and Mr. Kendall, by which he was to talk so you could 
take it down ? A. He made the arrangement so I would take down 
whatever he said on the 'phone, and he would say it slowly. 

Mr. Byrne. — We object to that and ask that it be stricken out, 
on the ground that it has been gone over and is not proper re- 
direct. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

The Witness. — I testified yesterday that there are a few parts 
of that conversation which I did not get; there are some very 
little fractions of it that I missed entirely. 

Q. That arrangement was made on the 25th ? A. On the after- 
noon of the 25 th. 

Q. On. the 26th, calling your attention to the first telephone 
communication, will you state the way and the manner of the 
conversation, the speed followed, etc., by Mr. Kendall in talking 
to Senator Stilwell ? A. Mr. Kendall spoke very slowly for really 
two purposes — 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that. 

The Chairman. — Strike out " for really two purposes." 

The Witness. — Some of it was spoken two or three times ; 
Mr. Stilwell did not understand it. 

Mr. Byrne. — That is objected to. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out. 

Q. 'No; just tell us what was done. It was repeated two or 
three times, that is competent. A. It was repeated two or three 
times, some parts of it, and a few sentences I did not get at all, 
short sentences, like " yes, sir " and '^ no, sir." 

Q. Was that true of the subsequent conversation on that same 
day over the 'phone ? A. The subsequent conversations were very 



313 

^hort, and I think I got practically every word of thenij because 
they were so short. I can carry a sentence quite a little while in 
my mind, anyv>^a3\ 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I now desire to offer these memo- 
randa in evidence as memoranda that were made at the time when 
the transaction took place, as part of the res gesta memoranda 
that were used in the cross-examination. 

The Chairman. — They are marked for identification now ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Marked for identificatioUj and 
thereby made competent. We offer them in evidence. 

Mr. Wilson. — We would like to know what the attorney-gen- 
eral is offering. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The memoranda marked for 
identification of the conversations on the 26th, 27th and 28th of 
March, over the telephone, between Senator Stilwell and Mr. 
Kendall. 

Mr. Wilson. — We say that we had a right to these memo- 
randums, and before cross-examining him, we asked for them, and 
I understand this Committee to hold that we did not have a righf 
to receive them, and he offers them in evidence. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — You have seen them and cross- 
examined too ? 

Mr. Wilson. — We have not cross-examined on them. We ob- 
ject. We ask to take these memoranda, and compare them and 
cross-examine him. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — You had them. 

Mr. Wilson.— When? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Mr. Byrne had them, and asked 
questions from them. 

The Chairman. — We don't need any argument. We admit 
them as evidence. 

Mr. Wilson. — I except to it. I would like to ask him one ques- 
tion in this connection. 

Attorney-General Carmod}'. — I am not through. I want to ask 
him another question. These are admitted in evidence? 

The Chairman. — Yes. 



314 

The five memoranda heretofore marked for identification, re- 
ceived in evidence and marked State Exhibits 18 to 22 inclusive. 

By Attorney-General Carmodj: 

Q. You were asked by counsel how you remembered, or if you 
did remember, whether or not you were at lunch on February 
26th, at the Capitol, and I do not think you completed your 
answer. I will give you an opportunity now to do so, if you 
desire. If you have any way of knowing or remembering why 
you say you did not lunch at the Capitol on the 26th, please state 
it ? A. Mr. Kendall and I, after waiting around for some time 
for the Senate to adjourn in the lobby, went in to the Senate 
'Chamber to meet Mr. Stilwell, but he — 

Q. I do not want to go over this whole business again. I want 
you to call attention to some particular fact, if there is such ? 
A. I am getting to that. 

Q. Get right to it ? A. We missed Mr. Stilwell, and found 
him in the Judiciary Committee room, and we waited there for 
some little time for him, Mr. Kendall and myself, walking up and 
do\^ai the corridor, and finally he came out. Mr. Kendall joined 
him, and they had a little conversation. I think first Mr. Ken- 
dall said, " Can't we go to lunch now ? " Mr. Stilwell said, 
" We don't eat up here," and they started to talk about the bill, 
and he said, " We might as well eat anj^way," and they went over 
to the Senate restaurant, and I went down to the Ten Eyck my- 
self; to lunch. 

Attorney-General Carmod}^ — One of the Committee desires 
to ask this question : 

Q. This question I ask at the request of a Senator : '^ Did you 
ever hear Senator Stilwell make a demand for first $250, or any 
sum to draw the bill ? " A. 'No, I never heard it. 

Q. " Second : $3,500, or any other amount, to secure a favorable 
report of Senate and Assembly Codes Committees, on the bill ? " 
A. E'o, I did not hear it. 

Q. " Did you ever hear Senator Stilwell admit to Kendall or 
any one, that he had made such demand ? " A. I never heard 
him admit it, no. 

Q. You have testified to all you do know on that subject ? A. 
I think so. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. 

Mr. Wilson. — I want to ask you a question. ^ 



315 

Ev Mr. Wilson: 

Q. Won't jou look carefully at the article in the Sun of 
Wednesday, April 2d, the same one that he showed you. (After 
a pause) You have looked at it sufficiently for my purpose? A. 
I think so. 

Q. You see what it says there, that you have delivered your 
minutes to the Governor ? A. ^No, I do not think it says that ; 
I have never seen it. 

Q. We can straighten it out here very quick. One of the 
documents filed with the Governor was labeled, '^ Memorandmn of 
conversation between Mr. Kendall and Senator Stephen J. Stil- 
well, over the long distance telephone on March 26th, the date 
the bill was reported." It reads as follows : — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Is this the same report that 
witness was cross-examined on by Mr. Byrne ? 

Mr. Wilson. — That is what I want to know. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I object to a continuation of this 
cross-examination for the purpose simply of avoiding the neces- 
sary delays. We have been over it by other counsel, and we have 
got the exact facts. 

Mr. Wilson. — You don't object to it because he says you gave 
it out, do you ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He says I gave it out ? 

Mr. Wilson. — He says he don't know whether it was given 
out from the Attorney-General's office. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I^obody said I gave it out ; no- 
body will say so. 

Mr. Wilson. — I am going to ask him. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Ask him ; you can ask me. 

Q. One of the documents filed by the Governor is labeled: 
'' Memorandmn of conversation between Mr. Kendall and Senator 
Stephen J. Stilwell, over the long distance telephone on March 
26th, the date the bill was reported," and it reads as follows: 

Xow follows a report of 'phone conversation indicating that it 
is copied literally and it purports to be signed by G. A. Field. 

The Witness. — Here appears the paper in question ; right here 
(indicating). 



316 

Q. You say you didn't give it up? 

The Chairman. — He isn't sworn there. 

Mr. Vv^ilson. — But it is perfectly good with me. 

Q. Who did give out that interview to the Sun ? A. I never 
knew. I don't know anything about who gave it out. 

Q. Did you deliver to the Governor a paper identical with 
what appears in the Sun ? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. This purports to be an interview made between President 
Kendall and the Sun reporter and he says that you helped pre- 
pare that report? That is what Mr. Kendall said; is that so? 
A. It is so, certainly. I did help to prepare it. I prepared all 
of this. 

Q. Very well. Have you got the papers of which that pur- 
ports to be a copy ? A. There it is right there; signed by me 
right there (indicating). 

Q. Is that the same as appears in the Sun ? A. I think so. I 
cannot say verbatim. I remember reading it. It is exactly the 
same. As a matter of fact it starts exactly the same: ^^Memor- 
andum of conversation between Mr. Kendall and the Senator " — 

Q. All right. Then in that article that appears in the Sun 
purporting or stating to be a memorandum filed with the Gover- 
nor, purporting to be signed by you, is every word that you heard 
Senator Stilwell say in that telephone conversation at that time? 
A. Substantially every word. 

- Ethel G. Allen recalled. 
Direct examination by Attorney-General Carmody : 

Q. On March 25th, Miss Allen, did you take a dictation of 
what purported to be a telegram addressed to Senator Stilwell 
at Albany? I show you this telegram, without signature, I have 
forgotten the number by which it is identified. It is in evidence 
and I ask you if that is what you took down? A. Yes. 

Q. And is that as you took it down? A. Just as I took it 
down. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — For the purpose of identifying 
it I will read it again. 

" March 25, 1913. 

" Stephen J. Stihvell, Senate Chamber, Albany, N". Y. Five 
for thing; as law seems to me better than present uncertainties." 



317 

Q. Did you have anything to do with that telegram after you 
took it down ? A. I took it to the telephone — telegraph office 
at the Brevoort House. 

Q. And what did you do with it there? A. I gave it to the 
telegraph operator. 

Q. AVas it enclosed in an envelope ? A. 'No. 

Q. On what kind of paper was it written ? A. On a telegraph 
blank. 

Q. ^Yas there any other mark on it than appears now on the 
typewritten portion of this paper that I show you. A. ISTo. 

Q. No signature ? A. No signature. 

Q. That was dictated to you by whom ? A. By Mr. KendalL 

Q. Do you remember what time of the day it was you deposited 
it in the telegraph office? A. I don't remember the exact time 
but it was after half-past one. 

Q. You say you don't remember the exact time? A. ISTo. 

Q. But it was — A. After half-past one. 

Q. After half-past one. "What is your best recollection, Miss 
Allen, as to what time it was ? A. Well, I have an idea that it 
was between half -past one and two, but I am not sure. 

Q. Were you in the office of Mr. Kendall on the 25th of March ? 
A. Yes. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Do you remember typewriting this on the same blank. Miss 
Allen ? A. I don't know that is the same blank, but I wrote the 
telegram on it. 

By Senator Griffin : 

Q. Is that the paper that you brought to the telegraph office 
to send a message? A. It was the same kind of paper as that. 
I do not know if that is the same one. 

Q. Then you cannot state whether this was the original paper 
which you typewrote and brought to the telegraph office? A. I 
do not know that is the exact one, but the telegram was just the 
same as that. 

By Senator Pollock: 

Q. Do you know if this is the color of the typewriter ribbon 
that you used ? A. We have purple ribbon. 

Q. Can you recognize the style of type? A. It is that same 
style of type. 



Attorney-General Carmodj. — This telegram is produced under 
subpoena from the Postal Telegraph at our request. This is the 
very paper the Telegraph Company produced that she says was 
deposited by her. 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Did you make a copy of it in the letter press book ? A. l^o, 
I made another copy and gave it to Mr. Kendall on another blank. 

Q. You made it on another blank ? 

Senator Griffin. — Do you say, General, that the paper you hold 
in your hand is the one produced by the Telegraph Company ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Under subpoena. 

Senator Griffin. — Under subpoena? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. 

Senator Pollock. — From which office ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The ^N'ew York office. 

Senator Griffin. — That is the paper from which they trans- 
mitted the telegram ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is the paper offered to us 
under subpoena as the one that was left there by somebody and 
transmitted to Senator Stilwell. 

Mr. Wilson. — Which one do you claim we are bound by ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I don't make any claim, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. — The one she wrote or the one you claim arrived 
here in Albany. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I am going to offer this in evi- 
dence as the one produced on the subpoena by the telegraph com- 
pany she says is similar to the one she wrote. 

Mr. Wilson. — May I inquire of you if there is any difference 
between the telegram they claim they sent and the telegram that 
it is claimed arrived here in Albany ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — 'No. 

Mr. Wilson. — There is none ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — J^one whatever. 

Mr. Wilson. — 'None whatever. Then I don't see any point. 



319 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I want it in evidence as the one 
she wrote to corroborate the other. 

Senator Pollock. — What is the objection ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — i^o objection now I understand. 

Mr. Wilson. — I object to it on the ground the telegram never 
got here. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — But no particular objection to it ? 

Mr. Wilson. — ^^vTo. 

The telegram referred to marked State's Exhibit 23 of this date. 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. I was asking you whether you were in the office of Mr. 
Kendall on the 25th of March? A. I was. 

Q. Do you recall whether there Avas a call from Albany over 
the telephone for anybody ? A. I do not remember a call on the 
25th. 

Q. What? A. I do not remember a call on the 25th. 

Q. You don't remember on the 25th? A. l^o. 

Q. Do you know whether the telephones were connected up, 
the 'phones used by Field and the one used by Kendall on the 
25th ? A. Connected at the same time. 

The Chairman. — Are you right on the date, the 25th of 
March ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The 25th of March, yes, the date 
when this telegram was sent and we claimed there was a call from 
Albany on the 'phone. 

Senator Stilwell.- — I will ask the stenographer to read the 
answer put down. 

The stenographer read the ansAver as folloAvs : '' Connected at 
the same time." 

Senator Stilwell. — And didn't she say frequently and — 

The Witness. — I said the telephones that Mr. Kendall and 
Mr. Field used Avere connected several times during the day for 
different causes. 

Q. Getting doA^m to the 26th were you in the office on the 26th 
of March ? A. Yes. 



320 

Q. Do you know of any call from Albany on that day over 
the 'phone ? A. I know there was a call from Albany about 
around half -past one. 

Q. What do you know about it ? A. The telephone rang and 
I answered the 'phone. Mr. Kendall had started out to lunch. 
Mr. Field sat at the door waiting to see who the call was from. 
It was from Albany. Mr. Field went and called Mr. Kendall 
'back. Mr. Kendall went in his private office, the 'phones being 
already connected and Mr. Field went to his desk and took the 
receiver, and thej heard the call. I hung my receiver up then. 

Q. You didn't hear it at all ? A. ISTo. 

Q. Did you make the connection between Mr. Field's 'phone 
and Mr. Kendall's 'phone on that day ? A. Yes, before they went 
to their 'phones on this occasion. 

Q. Was there a later call; that, I think you said, was about 
1 :30 ? A. Yes, about that. 

Q. Was there a later call that day ? A. Yes, there was a call 
later in the afternoon. 

Q. From Albany? A. Yes. 

Q. From whom? A. From Senator Stilwell. 

Q. What time was that ? A. I don't remember the exact time. 

Q. 'Can you tell us about when it w^as ? A. I do not know, but 
I know it was later in the afternoon. 

Q. Tell us what you know about that ? 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that as immaterial and already over- 
ruled. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

Q. Proceed. A. Mr. Kendall told me he was expecting a call 
from Senator Stilwell. 

Q. You are telling Avhat Mr. Kendall said to you. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is not competent or proper. 
I don't want that, what Mr. Kendall said. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out. 

Q. Just tell us what was done in regard to the call ? A. I 
would have to see what he said. 

Q. Tell us who called from Albany, if you know? A. I took 
up the receiver and they said it was a call from Albany. 

Q. You took up the receiver and somebody said — who said ? 



321 

A. 'No. I took lip the receiver and I have been told to listen to 
the conversation. Mr. Field was not in the office at that time. 

Mr. Wilson. — I move to strike out what she had been told. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out. 

Q. We want to know what happened, Miss Allen, not the con- 
versation between yon and anybody in the office ? A. I took up 
the receiver and I hung it up again. 

(The stenographer was instructed by the Chairman to read back 
all of the answers given by the witness.) 

Q. Did yon hear any talk over the 'phone? A. I heard some- 
one talking, but I didn't pay any attention to it. I took the re- 
ceiver up again and I heard part of a conversation. 

Q. ^ow, tell lis what you heard ? 

Mr. Byrne. — Will you kindly stop referring to your minutes 
there ? A. Well, this is the conversation that I have down. 

Q. I will ask you about that. You heard a conversation or a 
part of a conversation ? A. Yes. 

Q. J^ow, who did you hear talking? A. Senator Stilwell. 

Mr. Byrne. — l^ow, I object to that, unless she can testify she 
knew Senator Stilwell's voice. 

Q. How did you know it was Senator Stilwell? A. I heard 
him talking this morning and his voice sounded the same as it did 
over the 'phone. 

Mr. Byrne. — I would ask that that be stricken out, on the 
ground she has heard the voice she identified, after she heard the 
conversation on the 'phone. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Just wait a minute. 

Q. Did you hear Senator Stilwell's name mentioned in that 
conversation over the 'phone ? A. No, I didn't. 

Q. ^NTow, without saying any more about who it was, was this 
the conversation that Mr. Field has narrated this morning? 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that as incompetent, irrelevant and 
immaterial. 

Q. The conversation that occurred at the time. I am not ask- 
ing for the substance of the conversation now, but was it the 



322 

same time, the same connection and the same event that he testified 
to this morning ? A. Yes, the one that he said I had heard. 

The Chairman. — I think that is competent, counseL 

Q. ]^ow will you tell ns what yon heard first from your recol- 
lection. Tell ns all yon remember without referring to anything ? 
A. ''I took that matter up with that party and he says he will 
talk it over, and thinks it will be all right." That was all that 
I heard. 

Q. Did you take that down at the time ? A. Yes. 

Q. In shorthand ? A. Yes. 

Q. Have you the notes with you ? A. Yes. 

Q. Will you read them? A. (referring to shorthand notes) 
" I talked that matter over with that party — " 

Mr. Byrne. — I would object to this and ask that if she is 
going to refresh her memory that she not read from these exact 
notes. This is not competent or proper. 

The Chairman. — You read your notes over first, then state if 
there is anything new in the notes. You can refresh your recollec- 
tion from them and state to the stenographer, and the stenographer 
is instructed to strike out what she started to read from the notes. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — !N"ow proceed. 

The Witness. — Shall I read this ? 

Q. Start in from the beginning, after you have refreshed your 
recollection ? A. '' I talked that matter over — " 

Mr. Byrne. — I will object again. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Just put your notes away. 

Mr. Wilson. — I understand that this is an absolute record, not 
a memorandum. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — This is competent, I think, with- 
out any question. 

Mr. Wilson. — I think you have got -an 'entirely different 
proposition. 

The Chairman. — I think so too, when you call my attention 
to it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — ■ Then, if she will be permitted 
to read from her notes — 



323 

The Chairman. — Go ahead and read. 

The Witness. — '' I talked that matter over with that party 
and he says he will take it up and thinks it will be all right.'' 

Q. That is all you heard \ A. That was all. 
Q. That is the only telephone conversation that you did hear? 
A. Yes. 

Q. Between Senator Stilwell and Mr. Kendall \ A. Yes. 

By Senator Griffin: 

Q. Was Mr. Kendall on the other receiver ? A. Yes, he was. 

Q. Did you hear anything that Mr. Kendall said? A. ^o^ 1 
didn't. 

Q. AVell, this that you have just testified to must have been in 
answer to something, w^as it not ? A. It must have been. 

Q. You did not hear any question by Mr. Kendall or the per- 
son that was on the other receiver ? A. E'o, I didn't. 

Q. And that was all that you heard ? A. That was all. 

Q. ^o questions, no answers ? A. ISTo. 

Q. ]^othing but this that you have just testified to ? A. Noth- 
ing but that. 

Q. And then did the conversation cease ? A. I hung up my re- 
ceiver. 

Q. Did you hang up your receiver in obedience to the request 
of anybody, or did you do so voluntarily? A. E'o. 

Q. Who told you to hang up your receiver? A. Mr. Field. 
He didn't tell me, but he went to his 'phone and motioned to me. 

Q. What did Mr. Field do ? Did he take the receiver off his 
'phone? A. Yes, as soon as I saw him motion to me, I hung 
up my receiver, but he had already had his receiver to his ear and 
was listening. 

Q. As soon as you saw he had established the connection, you 
hung up your receiver ? A. Yes, sir. 

By Attorney-General Carmody : 

Q. According to the arrangements were you to listen on the 
'phone in the absence of Mr. Field ? A. Yes. 

Q. And when Mr. Field came you were not to listen any 
longer? A. No. 

Q. And that is why you didn't take any more of the conversa- 



324 

Bj Senator Foley : 

Q. Did jovL h'cwe any difficulty taking those notes ? A. l^o, 
sir. 

Q. As far as tlie speed or the voice was concerned? A. i^o, 
sir. 

Q. Did yon finish the dictation at the time the voice conclnded 
that sentence, or did yon have to write something later on, after 
you hung up ? A. 'No, I wrote it before I hung up the receiver. 

Q. Was it spoken very fast ? A. 'No, not very. 

Q. Could you have written it in longhand in the same time? 
A. I don't think I could. I am not a very rapid writer. 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Do you think it could have been written in longhand by a 
rapid writer ? A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Byrne. — I would object to these thinks — 

The Chairman. — Yes, that is a conclusion. 

Q. Was the rate of speed such that it could have been taken 
down by a person writing with ordinary speed in longhand ? A. 
I think it could. 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that on the same ground. 

The Chairman. — Objection sustained. It is a conclusion on the 
part of the witness. 

By Senator Pollock: 

Q. Where were you seated when you listened to this conversa- 
tion ? A. At my desk. 

Q. Is the telephone switchboard on your desk ? A. It is right 
next to it. 

Q. There are extensions in the private office of both Mr. Ken- 
dall and Mr. Field? A. Mr. Field has no private office. Mr. 
Kendall has. 

Q. Where was the extension that Mr. Field was listening to? 
A. At his desk. 

Q. Where was that located as from your desk? A. Next to 
mine. 

Q. How far away ? A. l^ot very far. 

Q. Well, as far as from your chair to the table here that the 
stenographer is seated at ? A. Might be a little further. 



325 

Q. Was there any obstruction between your desk and the desk 
that Mr. Field sat at ? A. l^o. 

Q. Any screen around his desk ? A. 'No. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Wilson: 

Q. In the Sun of April 2nd, what purports to be a memorandum 
filed with the Governor, is given a statement here of a proposed 
telegram that was to be given out to the public, i^ow will you 
look at that, ^^ Declines to report Stock Exchange bill '' and so on. 
You see what it is (handing paper to witness) ? A. Yes. 

Q. iN'ow, was that dictated to you and did you take it on the 
typewriter? A. No. 

Q. Was it dictated to you ? A. It was dictated to me after Mr. 
Field had taken the conversation over the telephone. He dictated 
all of the conversation to me. 

Q. Did he dictate that to you at any time? A. Just as part 
of the conversation. 

Q. Eut that did not come to your knowledge until after the 
conversation had been held? A. No. 

Q. E'ow, did he dictate to you that as it appears there, before 
the conversation, and deliver it to Mr. Kendall ? A. He did not. 

Q. He did not ? A. iS^o. 

Q. Have you any knowledge that Mr. Kendall had such a 
telegram at his office and at his telephone, while he was telephon- 
ing to Senator Stilwell? A. ISTo, I had not. 

Q. Have you any knowledge that any such telegram was pre- 
pared in writing or on a typewriter, previous to the conversa- 
tion? A. No. 

Q. Let me ask you, have you your minutes here that Mr. Field 
dictated to you after the conversation? A. No, I wrote it right 
on the typewriter from his dictation. 

Q. You wrote it down on the typewriter ? A. Yes. 

Q. Have you a copy of that ? A. IN'o, I have not. 

Q. And it was all as you have stated was from dictation of 
Mr. Field ? A. Yes. 

Q. ISTow did Mr. Field dictate anything to you? A. Of the 
conversation ? 

Q. Yes. A. E'o, he did not. 

Q. Then Mr. Field determined what the conversation had been 
between Mr. Kendall and Senator Stilwell, so far as you know? 
A. I know he wrote from his notes. 



326 

Q. He did not give you liis notes to copy, nor leave tliem with 
yon ? A. Well, I just wrote a few words. He left the desk for 
a minute. I wrote two or three words. He came right back 
again. 

Q. You didn't copy his notes ? A. 'No. 

Q. And are those the same notes that he had here today ? 
A. Why, I 'didn't see them. 

The Chairman. — Show them to her. 

(Papers handed to witness.) 

The Witness. — Yes, they are the same as far as I can see. 

Q. What did you do with the typewritten copy that you made ? 
A. I gave it to Mr. Field. 

Q. To whom ? A. Mr. Field. 

(}. Did you make more than one copy ? A. I made two. 

Q. Do you know what became of the other one? A. I gave 
them both to Mr. Field. 

Q. Do you know what he did with them? A. I don't know. 

Q. Have you ever seen either of them since ? A. I don't think 
I have. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Here it is (handing to Mr. 

Wilson). 

Q. ISTow, is that the copy that you made (handing to w^itness) ? 
A. Yes, that's the copy. 

Q. ISTow, won't you read from his minutes the opening part 
of the conversation ? If you will read " Mr. K. called S. on 
phone, Senate Chamber." Going along down '' Mr. Kendall, is 
this Senator Stillwell talking? Mr. Stillwell: Yes." Do you 
find that ? l^ow^ " Mr. K. Senator, I have been thinking over 
your proposition. I do not intend to be thrown down." Do you 
get to that ? A. No, I don't see that. 

Q. You don't get to that at all ? Well now, you notice here as 
you have given us here, it begins this way : " Mr. Kendall, is 
this Senator talking? Mr. Stillwell: Yes. Mr. K. Senator, 
I have been thinking over your proposition. I do not intend to 
be thrown down at this time by you." 

The Chairman. — Counselor, one of the Senators desires to 
know what the stenographer's knowledge of those notes has got to 
do with it. We understand it that Mr. Field made that memo- 



327 

randa at liis desk while the telephoning was going on. Then he 
took that memoranda, walked over, and while Miss Allen was 
working on her machine, he dictated it to her straight to the 
machine, 

Mr. Wilson. — That is substantially so ; she says that he dic- 
tated to her this memoranda that I hold in my hands. IN'ow I 
ask her if she read his minutes. He said he laid them on her 
desk as I understand and he went out, so she had an opportunity 
to examine them and have commenced to copy from them before 
he returned. 

The Witness. — It wasn't the first part of the conversation that 
I copied. 

Q. Well, no matter. A. I see this now where you started: 
" Is this Senator Stilwell talking ? " Is this right ? " Mr. Stil- 
well, yes. Mr. Iv. Senator, I have been thinking — " 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Do you want her to corroborate 
you as you go along? 

Mr. Wilson. — I^o, I want her to read from the minutes, it is 
only short. Read right out loud. 

The Witness. — Senator, I have been thinking of your propo- 
sition and I do not intend to be thrown down at this time by you 
or a legislator after fighting the Stock Exchange for thirty years 
for justice." I don't know what this word is. '' I will send 
you a telegram I am having made out, which will be sent to the 
Governor and ever}^ member of the Assembly and Senate before 
night. I will read it to you." Then it says '^ Telegram." 

Q. Was there any telegram in front of you ? A. 'No. 

Q. Was there any paper or any writing in front of you at that 
time ? A. Mr. Field read that to me. 

Q. Well, I say he dictated that to you ? A. Yes. 

Q. He then dictated it to you ? A. Yes. 

Q. But did he dictate it to you from any paper that you had 
prepared or that had been dictated to you before ? A. 'No. 

Q. Did he have any paper in his hand or did Mr. Kendall 
furnish you with any writing ? A. Mr. Field had a little memo- 
randum in his hand. 

Q. He had a little memorandum from which he dictated? A. 
Yes. 



328 

Q. Do you know whose liandwriting that was in ? A. I think 
that was Mr. Field's, but I am not sure. 

The Chairman. — The investigation is adjourned until 2.15 
p. M. 

Thereupon an adjournment was taken until 2:15 p. m. 



AFTEENOOlvr SESSION. 

Attornej-General Carmody. — I want to offer in evidence the 
notes taken by Miss Allen from the notes dictated by Mr. Field. 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to that as being incompetent and im- 
proper. 

The Chairman. — I do not think it is admissible. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Both sides think they ought to 
be in, so they can be compared. 

The Chairman. — You ought to have the originals. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — These are the originals. These 
are the originals she made. What I want is what she made. 

The Chairman. — I think we will sustain the objection. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I understood Mr. Wilson to say 
there was no objection to it. 

The Chairman. — Mark them for identification. 

j^otes marked State's Exhibit 24 for identification. 

Mr. Wilson. — Are you going to recall Miss Allen ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I don't think so. 

Mr. Wilson. — She is here, isn't she ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. Do you want her. 

The Chairman. — Who do you want ? 

Mr. Wilson. — I think perhaps I misled the Attorney-General. 
He asked me about those minutes, and I asked him if Miss Allen 
was here, and he said she was, and at that moment I did not see 
any objection, provided she was recalled, but we can take that up 
just as well a few minutes later. 



329 

The Chairman. — ISTone of the vv ilnesses will leave the city or 
the courtroom until they are excused by the Committee. These 
subpoenas are supposed to run all the time we are in the course of 
the investigation. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Mr. John B. Fischer. 

The Chairman. — Take the stand. 

John B. Fischer^ a witness called on behalf of the State, being 
duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Direct examination by Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Fischer? A. Ardsley, 'New York. 

Q. Are you in the employ of the New York Bank IsTote Com- 
pany? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And were you during the month of March, the 25th, 26th, 
27th and 28th? A. Yes, sir; this year. 

Q. In what capacity ? A. Designer and engraver. 

Q. Do you recall an occasion in the month of March, when 
somebody called for you or to you from the ofiice floor in the 
building of the Bank ixTote Company? 

Mr. Byrne. — Objected to on the ground that it is indefinite. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

Q. I ask you if you recall the occasion first ? A. I do. 

Q. Can you tell us when it was ? A. It was early in the week, 
about two weeks ago. 

Q. Can you tell us the day of the week ? A. About Tuesday. 

Q. About Tuesday. A. It was Tuesday. 

Q. It was Tuesday? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Two weeks ago last Tuesday ? A. Yes. 

Q. Now, without giving any conversation, I wish you would 
tell the transaction? A. There was a call on the telephone wire, 
»and Mr. Kendall took it in his private office. He came to the 
door of his private office, and came out and called — 

Q, I don't want what was said; that is, I am willing to have 
it, but it is improper if they object to it. 

A. Your question, please. 

Q. The fact that there was a call from Mr. Kendall ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. That is what I want ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. To whom ? A. To anyone who was in the office. 



330 

Q. You heard his voice ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where were you? A. I was at my desk, at the catecorner 
end of the room. 

Q. What did you do ? A. I went to the telephone and did what 
he asked me to. 

Q. Did you call anybody ? A. I called Mr. Field. I called up 
the finishing-room by a ring. 

Q. You were in the office part of the building ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you in the same room with Mr. Kendall at the time ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And where was Mr. Field, where was the room he was in ? 
A, He was on the finishing-room floor, two floors above. 

Q. Two floors above ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. ^N'ow go on and tell what you did? A. I connected up the 
finishing-room and rang the bell, and Miss Pfleiberer answered. 

Q. Is that all you did ? A. I asked her for Mr. Field — 

Mr. Wilson. — I object to that. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — ]^o, we don't want what you said. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out. 

Q. You had a communication with her on the 'phone, did you ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. Was that all that occurred at that time? 

The Chairman. — Just a moment. Is this Tuesday, Febru- 
ary 26th? 

Attorney-General Carmody — 'No, March 25th; Tuesday, 
March 25th. 

The Chairman. — Yes, that is right. 

Q. You called up Miss Pfleiberer ? A. Yes. 

Q. On the finishing-room floor, that is the same floor where 
Fields was working ? A. Yes. 

Q. You didn't hear who she called, I suppose, or whether she 
called anybody? A. Yes, I can give that. 

Q. Did you hear her call somebody ? A. Yes, sir, I did. 

Q. Whom ? A. Mr. Field. 

Q. IN'ow, did you see Mr. Field after that ? A. Yes. 

Q. Where ? A. Coming from the private office of Mr. Kendall. 

Q. How long after that ? A. Oh, it was inside of ^ve minutes. 



331 

Q. You saw liim go into the private office ? A. I don't recol- 
lect seeing liim go in at all. 

Q. 'Where were you ? A. At my desk. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Cross-examine. 

Mr. Byrne. — l^othing. 

Mr. Wilson. — I had not received the minutes when Miss Allen 
was on the stand when we adjourned and I had forgotten that she 
had been excused. I had sent for the minutes and I have her 
testimony here now and I want to briefly complete her examina- 
tion. 

The Chairman. — Yes, I think you are right. I did not think 
we did excuse her. 

Mr. Wilson. — I will only take a minute and I see she is here. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Is that all of this witness ? 

]Mr. Byrne. — ^o cross-examination. 

The Chairman. — Witness excused. 

Ethel G. Allen recalled. 

Cross-Examination. 

By Mr. Wilson : 

Q. You were examined this morning and testified as to a cer- 
tain conversation ? A. Yes. 

Mr. Wilson. — I wish someone would repeat or answer so you 
can all hear. 

The Chairman. — The stenographer will repeat the answers. 

Q. Have you looked over your evidence since? A. I have 
not. 

Q. Do you recall what you testified to ? A. JSTo. 

Q. I want to hand you the stenogTapher's minutes (handing 
same to witness). 

Mr. Wilson. — If the committee will permit me, instead of 
reading her the evidence, to hand her the few sentences that I 
want to call her attention to. 

The Chairman. — All right. 

(Mr. Wilson hands minutes to witness.) 



332 

Q. You have read what I mean ? A. Yes. 
Q. ISTow I show yon a little slip of paper ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Will the stenographer mark that, please ? 

Paper marked Defendant's Exhibit 12 for identification of this 
date. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Let me see that, please. 

Mr. Wilson. — Yes (handing Defendant's Exhibit 12 for 
identification to Mr. Carmody.) 

Q. Head that (indicating Defendant's Exhibit 12 for identifi- 
cation. ) Are you able to make that out ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It doesn't seem to be very well written, but you get the pur- 
port of it ? A. Yes. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — What is the question? 

Mr. Wilson. — I asked lier if she was able to read it and she said 

yes. 

Q. ]^ow, referring to your evidence this morning, I first ask 
you that these are the questions and answers that were put to you 
concerning the conversation (reading) : 

" The Chairman : ' The stenographer was instructed by the 
Chairman to read back all of the answers given by the witness.' " 

!N'ow, again, by the Attorney-General (reading) : 

^' Q. Did you hear any talk over the 'phone ? A. I heard 
someone talking, but I did not pay any attention to it. I took 
the receiver up again and I heard part of a conversation." 

Do you recall that? A. Yes. 

Q. Then you didn't pay any attention to the conversation, but 
you heard someone talking, you took up the receiver and heard 
part of a conversation ? A. Yes. 

Q. (reading) ^^ Q. 'Now, tell us what you heard? 

^' Mr. Byrne. — Will you kindly stop referring to your minutes 
there ? 

^^ A. Well, this is the conversation that I have down :" 
Q. You remember that ? A. Yes. 

Q. And to what minutes did he refer, do you know; did you 
have vour minute book with vou? A. Yes. 



333 

Q. And various memoranda. And were you referring to tliat 
same — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — She doesn't say slie liad various 
memoranda. 

Q. What did you have ? A. I had my note book. 

Q. Your stenographer's minutes? A. Yes. 

Q. And some typewritten statements? A. Yes. 

Q. And in that you put what you did hear of the conversation ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. And all you knew about it? A. Yes. 

Q. (reading). ^' Mr. Byrne, will you kindly stop referring to 
your minutes there? 

"A. Well, this is the conversation that I have down." 

By the Attorney-General (reading) : 

" Q. I will ask you about that. You heard a conversation or 
a part of a conversation? A. Yes. 

Q. " 'Now, who did you hear talking ? A. Senator Stilwell.^' 
Did you make that answer? A. I think I did. 

Q. \\^at is that? A. I think I did. 

Q. Do you want to correct it. Just a moment, because — 

The Chairman. — Let her understand what you are directing her 
attention to. 

Q. (Reading) ^^ E'ow, who did you hear talking?" and you 
answered " Senator Stilwell." 

" Mr. Byrne. — E'ow, I object to that unless she can testify she 
knew Senator Stilwell's voice. 

" How do you know it was Senator Stilwell ? A. I heard him 
talking this morning and his voice sounded the same as it did 
over the 'phone." 

That is correct, is it? A. Yes. 

Q. That is as you testified ? A. Yes. 

Q. (Reading) ^' Mr. Byrne ; I would ask that that be stricken 
out, on the ground she has heard the voice she identified, after she 
heard the conversation on the 'phone. 

"Attorney-General Carmody : — Just wait a minute. 

" Q. Did you hear Senator Stilwell's name mentioned in the 
conversation over the 'phone ? A. No, I didn't. 



Q. ^^Attorney-General. — J^ow, without saying any more about 
it, or who it was, was this the conversation which Mr. Field has 
narrated this morning? A. Well, yes, that is the one I said I 
heard. Q. 'Now, just what did you hear ? A. This is all I heard. I 
heard someone say ' I took that matter up with that party and he 
says he will talk it over and thinks it will be all right.' That was 
all that I heard." 

Q. E"ow, was that all you heard? A. That was all the con- 
versation. 

Q. And that was when you picked up this receiver, and as you 
have stated, you didn't pay much attention; somebody was talk- 
ing? A. Yes. 

Q. Now, you have read the little memoranda that I handed 
you ? A. Yes. 

Q. 'Now, did you sit before you took the stand, just back of the 
rail ? Did you sit back of the rail where those ladies are sitting ? 
A. Over the other side. 

Q. And were you somewhat busily engaged with your notes 
and somewhat nervously, before you went on the stand? A. I 
was looking over my book. 

Q. There were at least three ladies sat near you? A. Yes. 

Q. A number of them, and a number of people about you ? A. 
Yes. 

Mr. Byrne. — Can that be spoken loud enough ? 

•Senator Blauvelt. — The stenographer read the answer. 

(The answers of the witness thereafter were read by the stenog- 
rapher. ) 

Q. You were on the other side of the rail ? A. Yes. 

Q. Did Mr. Kendall come to the rail before you were called 
to the stand? A. Yes. 

Q. And did you have a conversation there with him? A. He 
spoke to me. 

Q. Did he ask you to say — will it embarrass you if I ask 
you these questions? A. No. 

Q. You are willing to state ju.st what there was about it, or 
do you perfer not to ? 

Attorney-General 'Carmody. — Well, ask your questions. I 
would suggest that would be the proper way. 



335 

Q. Did Mr. Kendall speak loud enough for you to hear him? 
A. Yes. I heard what he said. 

Q. Did you say to him, this, or this in substance: '^ If I say 
it was Senator S til well, and they should ask me ' How did you 
know it was Senator Stilwell/ and did he say to you ^ say why, I 
heard him talking this morning, and his voice sounded the same 
as it did over the phone.' " Did he say that to you, or that in 
substance? A. I don't remember saying that to him. 

Q. You don't remember that. You didn't ask him, but that 
is what he told you to say, if they asked you, to say you had heard 
him talking this morning, and his voice sounded the same as it did 
over the phone. I won't press you any further. In other words, 
you couldn't think of any way that you could remember Mr. 
Stilwell, or who it was, having said that you didn't hear his name 
mentioned, or anything else, until this Mr. Kendall told you to 
say that if that question was asked you, you could say you had 
heard his voice over the phone ? That's all. I won't ask you any 
further. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I don't hear what was said at all. 

The Chairman. — There was no answer w^hatever. 

Mr. Wilson. — Let the stenographer read the whole of it. 

Question read. 

'^ Q. You don't remember that. You didn't ask him, but 
that's what he told you to say, if they asked you, to say you had 
heard him talking this morning, and his voice sounded the same 
as it did over the phone. I won't press you any further. In 
other words you couldn't think of any way you could remember 
]\Er. Stilwell, or who it was, having said that you didn't hear his 
name mentioned, or anything else, until this Mr. Kendall told 
you to say that if that question was asked you you could say you 
had heard his voice over the phone ? " That's all. I wont ask 
you any further. 

By Senator Griffin: 

Q. Was that the substance of the conversation that Mr. Ken- 
dall had with you this morning ? 

Mr. Wilson. — I ask the Committee under the circumstances 
to excuse this young lady from answering that question until I 
call Mr. Kendall. 



336 

Senator Griffin. — She don't want to be excused. You asked 
the question; let her answer it. 

Mr. Wilson. — I turn the matter over to the Committee. 

Senator Griffin. — It is either the fact or not the fact. 

The Chairman. — Do you wish to ask any questions ? 

Attorney-General Carmodj^ — I would like to have you state. 
I was going to ask the entire conversation. 

Senator Griffin. — I prefer the question to be read by the 
stenographer and let her answer that one specific question as to 
that specific fact. 

Question read. 

Q. You don't remember that. You didn't ask him, but that 
is what he told you to say if they asked you, to say you had heard 
him talking this morning, and his voice sounded the same as it 
did over the phone. I won't press you any further. In other 
words you couldn't think of any way that you could rem'ember 
Mr. Stilwell, or who it was, having said that you didn't hear his 
name mentioned, or anything else, until this Mr. Kendall told 
you to say that if that question was asked you, you could say you 
had heard his voice over the phone. That's all. I won't ask you 
any further. 

Senator Griffin. — ISTow read her my question. 

Question read. 

Q. Was that the substance of the conversation that Mr. Ken- 
dall had with you this morning? 

Senator Grifiin. — Mr. Chairman, perhaps the witness don't un- 
derstand that question is directed to her and she is expected to 
answer. 

The Chairman. — I think she understands thoroughly. 

Senator McClelland. — What is the question asked the witness, 
Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Griffin. — It has just been read by the stenographer. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — May I ask a question, please ? 

The Chairman. — Yes. 



337 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Do yon understand that there is a question asked you by 
the Senator, that was read to you, and you are asked to give an 
answer to it, Miss Allen ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You understand the question? A. Yes, sir. 

Senator Griffin. — Will the stenographer please read that 
question. 

The Chairman. — Do you want to call Mr. Kendall ? We will 
suspend for a minute. 

Senator Velte. — I would like to have the stenographer read 
the question. 

Senator Griffin. — Senator Velte has asked to have the question 
re-read. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the stenographer read that 
question. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Miss Allen, can you answer the 
question ? Will you answer the question that is before you ? Can 
you answer it ? If not, will you tell what took place between you 
and Mr. Kendall this morning ? 

Senator Griffin. — I haven't heard that question. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I asked her if she would tell 
what took place. 

Mr. Wilson. — 'No, we have a distinct question here. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I ask the Committee to be al- 
lowed to ask the girl this question. 

Mr. Wilson. — If for any reason she don't want to answer that 
question, we are willing not to press it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I want her to answer. 

Mr. Wilson. — Then, I think you ought to instruct her as to her 
rights. 

Attorney-General Carmody.— I have. I want her to give the 
conversation now. 

The Chairman. — Proceed. 

Senator Griffin. — Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my question for 
a moment, and see how she makes out. 



338 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. 'Now, will you tell what took place between Mr. Kendall 
and yourself this morning? 

Mr. Wilson. — I am examining the witness, and I don't pro- 
pose — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Will you answer that question ? 

By Mr. Wilson: 

Q. Are you willing to answer the question I asked you. A. I 
would rather not. 

The Chairman. — Will all but the examining counsel sit down, 
please. 

Q. ISTow, you say you would rather not ? A. Yes. 

Q. You have been told that it is a question that you need not 
answer, if you think it would in any way tend to incriminate or 
disgrace you ? 

The Chairman. — Strike that out. Has anyone told you that ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Why, I asked him if he had instructed her as 
to her rights, and he said he had. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Oh, no, I haven't talked to her. 

Mr. Wilson. — What did the Attorney-General say ? 

The remark of the Attorney-General read by the stenographer 
as follows: 

" Attorney-General Carmody. — I have. I want her to give the 
conversation now." 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Oh, no, I did not instruct her. 

Mr. Wilson. — It turns out that I misunderstood you. I have 
nothing further to say. She says she would rather not answer the 
question. 

The Chairman. — Proceed. 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Now, will you tell the conversation between Mr. Kendall 
and yourself, to which your attention has been called ? A. A¥hy, 
I don't remember just exactly what it was. 



339 

Q. Tell what you remember of it. Do you reccall any of it? 
A. jN"0j I can't. I conldn't tell it. 

Q. You cannot recall any of it ? A. 'No. 

Attorney-General Carmocly. — That is all. E'ow I ask to recall 
Mr. Kendall. 

The Chairman. — Senator^ what is it ? 

Senator Stilwell. — I was jnst going to say something — never 
mind. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. 

Mr. Wilson. — I would like to ask Miss Allen right here — when 
you were called to the stand, you did not know what questions 
you were going to be asked? A. No, I didn't. 

Q. ^one whatever? A. No. 

George H. Kendall, recalled : 

By Attorney-General Carmody : 

Q. Did you have a conversation with Miss Allen this morning 
in regard to her testimony? A. I had a conversation with Miss 
Allen this morning in the court room here. 

Q. In the court room ? A. Yes. 

Q. At the time referred to by counsel ? A. I presume so, sir. 

Q. I would like to have you tell v/liat took place ? 

Mr. Wilson. — I object to that. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I ask it. I want this thing 
cleared up right here. 

Mr. Wilson. — I submit that he should put to him the precise 
question I put to her. If you will let me take the book. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — E'o, I want to put this question. 

Mr. Wilson. — I submit it is not competent or proper ; there is 
nothing here for him to deny yet. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — There is nothing here to explain 
before this committee, and I want to get this mystery cleaned up, 
and I think this is the proper way to do it. 

Mr. Wilson. — I object to his calling Mr. Kendall at this time 
to explain. I think it is our privilege to call him. 



340 

Attorney-General Carmodj. — I do not propose to have a scene 
created here because a yonng lady is so embarrassed with ques- 
tions put to her if that be the case that she cannot clearly tell what 
happened — 

Mr. Wilson. — Do you think — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Just a moment. I insist that 
this thing, is not to be surrounded or tied up at this critical time 
by any such practice as this. If the truth be as they have in- 
sinuated I want to know it. If it is not I want the truth known. 

Mr. Wilson. — Then I think it would be proper for him to give 
the young lady an opportunity if this be the reason of any 
embarrassment — 

The Chairman. — This is very mysterious, apparently. We want 
to know the truth. This is a Committee of Investigation. It is 
not a jury. We are not going to be bound by a lot of technical 
rules. If there is anything wrong we want to know it. 

Mr. Wilson. — Then I think we having called her and asked her 
and she having after a sufficient length of time and consideration, 
and the District Attorney or the Attorney-General saying that he 
had instructed her as to her rights, saying she preferred not to 
answer it, I think if anything further is to be done that it is 
for us to call this gentleman and inquire — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I want to correct as I have cor- 
rected the statement that I have instructed her in regard to her 
rights. I have not instructed her. I have had nothing to say 
with her. 

Mr. Wilson. — I am satisfied. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Then please don't repeat it. I 
don't want it on the record here. I insist, Mr. Chairman and 
gentlemen of the Committee, that the proper way to have this 
thing straightened out is to have Mr. Kendall first state what 
happened; then have him cross-examined, if they please, and I 
recalled him for that purpose. 

Senator Walters. — I believe and insist that the girl be asked 
the specific questions first before Mr. Kendall be examined on the 
subject or examined directly. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Senator, she was asked. 



341 

Senator Walters. — Mr. Chairman, the questions can be asked 
of her directly to refresh her recollection. She said she had no 
recollection. I think her memory should be exhausted first be- 
fore he testifies as to the conversation. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I am entirely willing. 

Senator McClelland. — I am with Senator Walters in that 
suggestion. 

Senator Griffin. — I think Senator Walters is mistaken as to 
her answer. She did not say that her recollection failed her, but 
that she would prefer not to answer. 

Senator Walters. — She followed that by saying that she had 
no recollection of the conversation that she could give on the 
question of the Attorney-General to that effect. 

Senator Foley. — I would suggest that Miss Allen be excused 
from the room while Mr. Kendall is testifying. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I think that is a proper sug- 
gestion; and be in the custody of some one designated by the 
Committee. 

The Chairman. — All right. Sergeant-at-Arms, will you 
escort — 

Senator Griffin. — Mr. Chairman, before you make any ruling 
or order on that proposition, I want to say that I concur in the 
view of Senator Walters here that the young lady who is a party 
to this conversation be examined first and that she be exhausted 
before the conversation is further inquired into with the aid of 
any other witness. I think that is only fair to all parties con- 
cerned. The young lady and Mr. Kendall are reputed to have 
had a conversation this morning prior to her testifying. Let her 
be examined and let her give a specific answer to the question as 
to whether Mr. Kendall said certain things to her. That is the 
orderly way of procedure. 

Senator Blauvelt. — I move that the Committee go into Execu- 
tive session and decide these questions. It is entirely out of order 
to have this discussion in public under the procedure which we 
established; these questions should be decided in Executive ses- 
sion. 

The Chairman. — The Committee will adjourn for Executive 
session outside in the next room. The Committee requests that 



342 

none of the witnesses involved in this proceeding leave their places 
until the Committee returns. We won't he over five minutes. The 
Committee will adjourn to the Ways and Means room next door. 

Senator Wagner. — Sergeant-at-Arms, do not let anybody out of 
the room until the Committee comes back. 

The Committee thereupon left the room and entered in Execu- 
tive session. 

After Executive Session. 

The Chairman. — The Attorney^General will proceed with the 
examination of Mr. Kendall and in the meantime I request that 
the Sergeant-at-Arms have Miss Allen leave the roomc 

George H. Kendall recalled: 
Examined by Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. i^ow, Mr. Kendall, did you have a conversation with Miss 
Allen this morning in respect to the testimony that she was going 
to give on the stand as a witness or might be called upon to give ? 
A. May I say what I said ? 

Q. First, did you have a conversation ? A. I had a conversation 
with her. 

Q. 'Now, I will ask you to state what you said. A. I said to 
her " That gentleman just sitting down is Senator Stilwell." She 
says '^ Yes, I know it is. I would almost recognize his voice." I 
said to her, '' If he speaks again pay attention to him, as you may 
as well be called upon to say something about it on the stand." 

Q. Is that all that was said ? A. That is all. 

Q. Is that all she said? A. All that was said. She, I don't 
think, said anything. 

Q. At what time in the proceedings did that occur? A. Im- 
mediately after Senator Stilwell sat down. 

Q. Did your conversation take place this morning at the time 
that Senator Stilwell was questioning the first witness ? A. ]^o, 
sir. 

Q. Or afterwards? A. I have forgotten when it was. The 
Senator rose and talked for — about something. I was reading 
my paper at the time and I really don't know what he was doing, 
but the Senator did speak and as soon as he sat down I went to 
the rail and said : ^' That is " — 



343 

Q. What I want to get at is, Senator Stilwell took part in 
the examination of a witness this morning? A. I was reading 
my paper. I don't know w^hat he was speaking. He had 
finished. 

Q. You know he was speaking? A. When he finished speak- 
ing I went to the rail and said to Miss Allen — 

Q. That was after he finished speaking? A. After he had 
finished. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. 

The Witness. — Is that all, sir ? 

The Chairman. — Just a minute. 

By Mr. Wilson: 

Q. Had you any knowledge or information when the young 
lady was called back to the stand this afternoon of what questions 
were to be put to her ? A. ^o, sir. 

Q. So you had said nothing to her whatever? A. Absolutely 
nothing whatever. 

Q. ^ow, you think you have made all of the explanation that 
you wanted to ? A. I haven't made any explanation, sir. I am 
merely stating what occurred. 

Q. You haven't made any explanation ? A. I merely stated 
Avhat occurred. 

Q. When did you first tell the Attorney-General what there 
was about it? A. The Attorney-General came to me. 

Q. When, first? A. When I was sitting in that chair there 
a few minutes ago. 

Q. Was that before or after she left the stand? A. After, as 
I recollect it. 

Q. So you had no opportunity to communicate either with the 
Attorney-General or with her until she left the stand? A. I 
certainly had not and didn't see her — 

Q. Where did the Attorney-General get his information that 
there was nothing to it and you could explain it? A. He came 
to me and asked me. 

Q. When did he get that, and where? A. About 15 minutes 
ago. When I was sitting in the chair there. AYhen I was sit- 
ting there. 

Q. When did you speak first with her as to whether she could 



344 

recognize Senator StilwelFs voice ? A. When the Senator fin- 
ished speaking this morning. 

Q. Then, between making jour explanation and hearing what 
there was about it only about fifteen minutes elapsed ? A. Be- 
tween making my explanation ? 

Q. Between hearing the young lady ask to be excused from 
stating whether you did state that to her, there was about fiiteen 
minutes to develop your explanation? A. I have testified. I 
have not any explanation. 

Q. 'You haven't an explanation. Have you denied it ? A. I 
have nothing to deny. 

Q. You have stated what you claim was said ? A. I have stated 
what was said. 

Q. Did you hear the Attorney-General put this question to Miss 
Allen (reading) : " You heard a conversation or a part of a con- 
versation ?" Miss Allen : " I heard someone talking but I didn't 
pay any attention to it. 1 took the receiver up again and I heard 
part of a conversation." Then " I will ask you about that. You 
heard a conversation or part of a conversation? A. Yes. 

Q. '^ ]^ow, whom did you hear talking? A. Senator Stilwell. 

Q. " How did you know it was Senator Stilwell ? A. I heard 
him talking this morning and his voice sounded the same as it did 
over the phone." A. That is just what she told me. 

Mr. Wilson. — " That is just what she told me " — I move to 
strike that out and have him wait until I ask him something. 

The Chairman. — All right ; strike it out. 

Q. (reading) : ^' Did you hear Senator Stilwell's name men- 
tioned in that conversation over the phone ? A. ISTo. I didn't." 

Q. E'ow, sir, in this court room and near this rail, back of 
where I stand, did you this morning have a conversation with 
Miss Allen, the witness who has been on the stand ? A, I did. 

Q. Did you have more than one conversation with her ? A. I 
did not. 

Q. Were you endeavoring to get her to say that she recognized 
the voice of Senator Stilwell? A. I was not. 

Q. Did you suggest it to her ? A. I did not. She suggested 
it to me that it was. 

Mr. Wilson. — IsTever mind about that. I move to strike it out. 
I ask if you suggested it to her. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out ; it is no part of it. 



345 

Q. Had slie at any time before that conversation claimed that 
she ever knew that Senator Stilwell was on the phone ? A. I do 
not know. 

Q. She never had told yon that she had, had she? A. Well, 
she had spoken to me about — 

Q. I ask you if she had ever claimed that she knew it was 
Senator Stilwell ? A. I should say not, because she had not 
seen him. 

Q. She never had seen him or heard him so far as she knew, 
had she? A. She couldn't tell it was Senator Stilwell speaking 
in Albany when she was taking her notes. 

Q. What is that? A. Of course she couldn't tell it was Sen- 
ator Stilwell speaking in Albany when she was taking her notes. 

Q. Well then, of course she couldn't tell that it was Senator 
Stilwell talking ? A. At that time when she was taking the notes 
over the phone. 

Q. Did you or do you think she testified truthfully this morn- 
ing, ^^ I heard some one talking but I didn't pay any attention to 
it ? '' A. You can rest assured that girl is the essence of truth. 
She has worked for me eleven years and you could not get her to 
tell a lie. 

Q. That is what I think about it, sir. I haven't any doubt. 
A. You may have her fainting here in a few minutes. 

Q. You knew that she couldn't be gotten to tell a lie ? A. I 
should find it out in 11 years. 

Q. And so knowing you told her as soon as she got Albany 
to hang up her phone and connect Field ? A. I have never 
told her that. 

Q. Who did tell her that ? A. She tells me — 

Q. IN'ever mind what she told you ? A. Let u.s find out what 
the facts are. You want the facts, don't you ? 

Q. I want you to keep still and answer me. You needn't get 
mad this time. Just answer questions this time? A. Give me 
the question. 

The question was read by the stenographer as follows : '' Who 
did tell her ? " 

Q. Who did tell her? If you don't know, that answers it. 
A. I don't know of anyone telling her. 

Q. Did 3^ou tell her that as soon as Albany called to connect 
Field? A. Oh, no, connect me, I think. You see I am in an- 



346 

other room. I cannot tell what is going on there — to connect 
my room. 

Q. Had jou instructed her as soon as she got Albany to have 
Field take the phone ? A. What is that ? 

Q. Read the question. 

The question was read by the stenographer as follows : " Had 
you instructed her as soon as you got Albany to have Field take 
the phone? A. I had instructed Field to be at the phone as 
quickly as he could any time Senator Stilwell called. 

Q. You say she is a perfectly truthful girl ? A. Certainly she 
is. 

Q. Has been in your employ 11 years? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You would tiTist her any^vhere? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then, she having the 'phone and being a stenographer, why 
didn't you let her take that conversation stenographically ? A. 
I will tell you why. 

Q. You may tell. A. The girl is so timid that if I wanted to 
call her for the same testimony that I called Mr. Field the poor 
girl would be frightened to death and be made to say anything, 
and therefore I wanted a man of aplomb like Mr. Field, that's 
my answer. 

Q. Then for eleven years you kept in your employ a stenog- 
rapher who is so timid that if she attempted to read or transcribe 
her notes, she could be scared to death ? A. I didn't say so, sir. 

Q. Well, then, wouldn't you be satisfied to take her steno- 
graphic notes of a conversation that occurred ? A. Oh, yes. 

Q. Then if you had three or four phony phones or extensions, 
why didn't you let her keep one, instead of getting Field and the 
other gentleman ? A. She has one. There are four right on the 
floor. Only one reaches into the next office. 

Q. You thought you would rather have Field ? A. Don't tell 
what I think now, you ask me, please. 

Q. I am going to ask you. What do you think ? A. On what ? 

Q. About this transaction ? A. Senator Stilwell ? 

Q. 'Now you say the reason why you did not want her to take 
that, and preferred Field, would be so that if she was called, she 
was timid and the poor girl might be easily frighteaied ? A. 
Easily frightened, easily misled. 

Q. Well, then, why was it that after you and Field had got 
your notes, you walked right into this same girl and had her take 
down what you claimed was the conversation? A. I did not. 



_J47 

Q. Well, did Field ? A. It was merely by accident tliat she 
took tliat down, and it is against my wish tliat she appears as a 
witness. The Attorney-General overrnles me. 

Q. Will you now let me take the conversation that was dic- 
tated from the notes of Mr. Field to this young lady, and which 
was marked for identification here? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — You mean the paper upon which 
the conversation was written ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Yes. 

Q. !N"ow, is that (handing to witness) the conversation that 
Field dictated to her? A. It is the conversation copied from 
Field's notes. 

Q. And is that the identical conversation that was published 
in the New York Sun of March 3rd \ A. I think it is, sir. 

Mr. Byrne. — April 3rd. 

The Witness. — I am not talking on dates now. 

Q. And is that the identical memoranda or a copy of the one 
that you filed with Governor Sulzer ? A. I didn't file it, he 
took it away from me. I have no doubt it is the identical paper. 
I have never filed it. He took it away from me. 

Q. Why didn't you fight? A. I don't think it is fair to ask 
me such questions. 

The Chairman. — N^o. 

Q. What do you mean by the Governor took it away from you ? 
A. I mean just what I said. He had a consultation with the 
Attorney-General in the corner of the room, after having left me, 
and Senator Stilwell having gone. The Governor walked up to 
me. I was sitting like this, and he snatched the papers out of 
my hand this way (illustrating) and says, ^^ I, as the Governor of 
N^ew York, seize these papers," and then he turned around, and 
stretched them out to Mr. Carmody. 

The Chairman. — E'ow, if the laughing does not cease in this 
room, we will have the room cleared. 

The Witness. — He stretched out his hand so (indicating) to 
Mr. Carmody, and says, ^' Turn them over to the Department of 
Justice." I never filed them, had no intention of leaving them 
with him. 



34:8 

Q. I can't add anything to that. Well, yon have now made 
your explanation of why — A. I have not, sir. I have no ex- 
planation to make. 

Q. Well, you are satisfied now that the explanation of why you 
didn't let the girl take the conversation is not a very good ex- 
planation? A. 'No, sir, it is the truth, and I am not particular 
whether it is good or bad. 

Q. Well, -it is the best explanation you can get up in fifteen 
minutes ? A. I havn't given any explanation. 

Q. I don't think you have either. ^N^ow, let me ask you some- 
thing. This morning, and near the rail that separates this room, 
did you say to Miss Allen, in the presence of one or more other 
persons who were near her, this — did she ask you " But if they 
should ask me how I knew it was Senator Stilwell, what could or 
what would I say ?" A. She never asked me. 

Q. Wait a minute. And did you say to her, '^ You say I heard 
him talking this morning, and his voice sounded the same as it 
did over the phone ?" A. She did not say that. 

Q. What is that, sir ? A. She did not say that. 

Q. I didn't ask you that. A. Did you ask me if I asked her 
that? 

The Chairman. — Just understand the question. The stenog- 
rapher will read it. 

Question read : 

" Q. And did you say to her, " You say I heard him talking 
this morning, and his voice sounded the same as it did over the 
phone ? " A. I did not say so. 

Q. That is what I asked you. A. I can't go any further than 
the stenographer's repetition of it, sir. 

Q. Well, try it again. Did she say this to you, — this, or this 
in substance: '^ If they should ask me how I knew it was Senator 
Stilwell," and did you say, " Why, you can say ' I heard him 
talking this morning, and his voice sounded the same as it did 
over the phone.' " A. I never — she or I. 

Q. Did that occur? A. No, sir. 

Q. Or that in substance ? A. No, sir. 

Q. You appreciate that if it did occur, that it would be a very 
serious offense, do you? A. If I should try to get that girl to 
make evidence — 

Q. I didn't ask you that? A. — here, I ought to go to jaiL 
I know that perfectly well without your telling me. 



349 

Q. Well^ the law makes it something more than a jail sentence ? 
A. Well, I don't know the distinction. 

Mr. Wilson. — That is all. 

Q. Is ]\Iiss Allen the treasurer of the i^ew York Bank 'Note 
Company? A. Yes, she signs our checks. 

Q. You have been asked about all arrangements that had been 
made between Miss Allen and yourself on the 26th day of March, 
as to telephone communications with Albanjr. I now ask you if 
you had said an}i;hing to Miss Allen about expecting a telephone 
call from Albany ? A. Oh, yes. 

Q. And did you say anything on the 26th of March — did you 
say anything to her about who you expected would call ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Who did you tell her you expected would call ? A. Senator 
Stilwell. 

Q. What time in the day was that ? A. Well, that was as soon 
as I came in the office. 

Q. Did you give her any instructions to take any part of the 
telephone conversation of Senator Stilwell to you, or of you to 
him ? A. I told here if it ever happened that Mr. Field was not 
at the phone, then to take down every word. If Mr. Field was 
at the phone, she need not trouble. 

Q. And you heard her state from her testimony that what she 
took was before he came in; you heard her state that what she 
took was before Field came in? A. Yes. 

Q. And that she took no more after he did come in ? A. Yes. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. 

By Mr. Wilson: 

Q. What was it that she took ? A. I was not in the room, sir, 
I could not tell you, I cannot testify. 

Q. Well, it was in substance that I have talked wuth the party, 
and I think it will be all right? A. I cannot testify to what 
happened. 

Q. You heard her testify to it this morning, didn't you? A. 
Yes; that is a different thing. 

Q. That I have talked with the party, and I think it will be 
all right ? A. Yes. 

Q. l^Tow, that all occurred before you said anything further to 
Senator Stilwell, didn't it ? A. That I said to Stilwell when ? 



350 

Q. The record shows about it ? A. When ? 

Q. In this conversation where jou claim you jacked him up 
-into getting both bills out of the Committees. ISTow, I want to 
ask you something so I can get it clear — A. Haye I any ques- 
tion ? I am trying to follow you. 

The Chairman. — Strike it off the record, and ask him again. 

Q. You. testified when you were on the stand before, that at 
the time that you had that conversation with Senator Stilwell 
that you read to him a telegram or a proposed telegram that you 
threatened to send to the Governor, and to every member of the 
Legislature; do you remember that? A. Whether I so testified 
^or not, it is true. 

Q. And you had that writing before you ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it in writing, or was it typewritten? A. It was in 
my handwriting, sir. 

Q. It was in your handwriting? A. In my handwriting. 

Q. Who prepared it ? A. My handwriting ? 

Q. I did. 

Q. Did you testify once that it was either written or dictated 
by Mr. Field ? A. I wrote out two or three copies. 

Q. I^ow, you answer me? A. What is the question. 

Q. Did you give this — A. One minute ; let me get the ques- 
tion. 

Question repeated by the stenographer as follows: 

^' Q. Did you testify once that it was either written or dictated 
by Mr. Field ? '' A. If I ever testified that it was dictated by Mr. 
Field, I was incorrect, and I withdraw the testimony. 

Q. That is all you have got to say about that ? Did you testify 
before this Committee in substance, that Mr. Field prepared it, 
that you took it into the telephone where you sat, and had it 
before you, at the time that you telephoned to Senator Stilwell ? 
A. Whether I ever so testified or not, I will not say, but if I so 
testified, it was incorrect. The telegram was formulated by me, 
and was first in my handwriting, and then I afterwards gave Mr. 
Field a copy of it, and I think Miss Allen. We are talking about 
the same telegram, the threatening one, the one commencing that 
Senator Stilwell won't report the bill out of committee ? Is that 
the telegram ? 

Q. Yes. I want to know if you had before you a writing that 
you yourself, or someone, had prepared, the contents of which 



351 

you transmitted to Senator Stilwell over the telephone? A. I 
did have such a writing. 

Q. And you so transmitted it ? A. And I so transmitted it. 

Q. You yourself prepared it for the purpose of transmitting? 
A. ^N'o, for the purpose of sending. I intended to send it out, 
and then changed my mind. You intended to send it out to the 
public? A. Xo, to the Governor, and every senator, without 
calling up Senator Stilwell. I intended first to send it out, a)]<l 
then I thought I would give him a chance. 

Q. Well now, did you know that that was blackmail ? A. 
Well, I don't care whether it was or not. You heard the facts, 
and I have got to accept the consequences of the truth; I am here 
to tell the truth. If it hurts me I cannot help it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I object to going over again this 
portion of the testimony. 

Mr. Wilson. — I have not been over this portion of the testi- 
mony before. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Several times. 

Mr. Wilson. — Oh, no, you are mistaken. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — And it is not cross-examination 
of anything. 

The Chairman. — I will sustain the objection. 

Q. I will put to him this question then. Did you send, deliver, 
or in any manner cause to be forwarded the writing you had be- 
fore you, by which you accused Senator Stilwell of committing a 
crime ? A. Shall I answer that ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Xo objection. 

A. I think my services to the State do not necessitate my being 
made a criminal. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I have made no objection to the 
question. 

The Witness. — May I have the question again. 
Question repeated hj the stenographer as follows : 
'' Q. I will put to him this question then : Did you send, de- 
liver or in any manner cause to be forwarded or received, the 
writing that you had before you, by which you accused Senator 



352 

Stilwell of committing a crime ? " A. I did. If it is a crime, I 
sent the telegram to the Governor, and can in no way evade or 
desire to evade tlie responsibility. 

By Attorney-General Carmody : 

Q. See if you are speaking about the same telegram. As I 
understand, counsel is speaking about this telegram that you read 
to him over the phone that you said you would send out ; you are 
evidently speaking about the telegram that you sent to the Gover- 
nor later, upon which these charges are made. 

Mr. Byrne. — I do not so understand it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I understand that is what Mr. 
Wilson has asked him about. 

The Chairman. — The general feeling of the Committee is, coun- 
selor, that v/e have been over this matter before, and we are sim- 
ply delaying it in repeating it, and I don't know when we will 
get through, if we don't insist on it being stopped somewhere. 

Mr. y/ilson. — Having in mind the statute of blackmail, to 
which there has been no reference made before, although I have 
put in the section of the Code relating to bribery, I have supposed 
that Mr. Field prepared that telegram, but this morning you will 
recall, if you also recall Mr. Kendall's testimony, for I say to you, 
unless my judgment is very much at fault, Mr. Kendall swore 
that Mr. Field was the one that prepared that writing. 'Now, if 
Mr. Field prepared the writing and gave it to him for transmis- 
sion, then the law takes hold of Mr. Field, and without any re- 
gard to whether the charges in it are true or false. 

The Chairman. — Which telegram are you speaking about now ? 

Mr. Byrne. — The telegram that was to be sent to the legisla- 
tors, that was injected into the conversation, and which was read 
from New York city over the telephone. 

The Chairman. — Of course, there is no proof in the case that 
that telegram was ever sent. 

Mr. Byrne.— It is not that ; it is not a matter of whether they 
had sent that ■ — 

Mr. Wilson. — This man swore he prepared it himself, that he 
had it before him, that it was written out in his own handwriting, 
and that he telephoned it to this man here. 



363 

Attorney-General Carmody. — What is there about it that we 
have not had over and over again? 

Mr. Wilson. — We have not had what we are getting now^ 

Attorney-General Carmody. — What ? You want to read the 
Penal Code to him now? We know what that is. There is no 
occasion for the discussion. 

The Chairman. — Let counsel go ahead. I think we can get 
it cleaned up faster. 

By Mr. Wilson: 

Q. I want to know whether or not this is true. I read to you, 
or eall your attention to Mr. Field's testimony this morning. 
Xow, referring to this, you will recall that it did not appear in 
his notes ? A. I recall ? 

Q. Yes. A. Don't tell m.e any such thing as that. 

Q. All right. A. What you want to tell about me, you take 
the stand and tell. 

Q. At pages 536 and 537: '^ Did you write that in there (re- 
ferring to the proposed telegram) ? A. 'No. Q. You did not 
write that in there? A. No, sir." A. What telegram are you 
talking about ? 

Q. Listen until you get it : '' Q. You had prepared that be;- 
fore hand ? A. Mr. Kendall had dictated the memorandum^ to 
me, and I had given the memorandum to Mr. Kendall." Was 
that the way it was prepared? A. Aren't you talking about the 
formulation of bill 1188 ? 

Q. Don't you know what I am talking about ? A. No, I do 
not. • 

Q. I am talking about a conversation that you claim you had 
over the telephone with Senator Stilwell, when you threatened 
to send a telegram that you told him you had prepared, and that 
you did send to him ? A. That I would send to Senator Stilv/ell. 

Q. You telephoned the contents of it, didn't you? A. I will 
repeat it so that you can get it on record now. 

Q. If you will tell me what I want to know, instead of dodg- 
ing — I ask if this is true, that it had been prepared beforehand ? 
A. The telegram ? 

Q. The proposed telegram ? A. Yes, I prepared it. 

Q. Mr. Field says: "Mr. Kendall had dictated the memoran- 
dimi to me, and I had given the memorandum to Mr. Kendall." Is 



354 

that right ? A. If by '' memorandum " he means the telegram, 
I think there is an error in the testimony. I think I remember. 

Q. There could not be any error in his testimony. A. I am 
glad to hear it. 

Q. You say that is not so ? A. I do not say it is not so. A 
memorandum is one thing, and a telegram is another, and I pre- 
pared that telegram. It is my composition. 

Q. You s'ay then, it is not true that you dictated — A. The 
grammar in it is mine. 

Q. Proud of it still, ain't you ? A. ISo, I am not proud of it, I 
am very sorry for the man I had sent it to. 

Q. Is it a fact that you dictated it to Field, Field wrote it out, 
and delivered it back to you; is that right? A. I don't know, 
sir; it is in my handwriting, as I remember it. 

Q. The next question put to Mr. Field was this: '' Q. Didn't 
you dictate the memorandum to Mr. Kendall, and not Mr. Ken- 
dall to you? A. Absolutely not. Q. Didn't you dictate this so- 
called telegram to the stenographer, and have it in the office 
in writing, before this telephonic communication took place ? A. 
Absolutely not. Mr. Kendall dictated it to me " — A. Whose 
testimony is this ? 

Q. '' Kendall dictated it to me in his private office, probably 
half or three-quarters of an hour before this happened." A. And 
it was at his persuasion that I did not let it go. 

Q. Was that true ? I want to know whether you agree with 
Mr. Field, or contradict him ? A. I don't know. I know I dic- 
tated the telegram, and had it all ready to go, and he said ^' Don't 
do it. Call up Stilwell first, and don't send it out." He has al- 
ways said, '^ Don't send this out." He always said so. 

Mr. Wilson. — I move to strike it out. My associate sug- 
gests that you read that question to him again, and ask him to 
answer it one way or the other. 

The Chairman. — Eead the question, stenographer. 

The stenographer thereupon repeated the question as follows: 

" Q. Is it a fact that you dictated it to Field, Field wrote it 
out and delivered it back to you ; is that right ? " A. I don't 
remember. 

Q. Then do you know any way that I can find out whether you 
or Field was the one that did it? A. I composed the telegram, 
wrote it out in longhand. That is the piece of paper that I used 



a65 

in talking to Stilwell about that. Outside of tliat I had Field 
make a copy of it, and a telegram was written out, proposed to 
be sent, I retaining the original memorandum all the time. 

Q. What do you mean by saying that you had Field make a 
copy ; make a copy of the one that you had drawn ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then why did you say you dictated it to him, if you had 
him make a copy? A. There is not that faint distinction in my 
mind between dictating what is on it, and having him make a 
copy ; I don't remember which. 

Q. Your mind now don't distinguish as fine as that? A. No, 
sir, not quite so fine as that. 

Q. What you do say now is that the message you transmitted 
to him was the proposed telegram that both of you say you read 
very slowly, that you don't know now whether it was the one 
that Mr. Field copied, or the one that you prepared ? A. I beg 
your pardon. I do say that the one that I read to Senator Stil- 
well was the one I wrote out in my own handwriting, the original 
draft, and had it right before me. 

Q. Was that the one that Mr. Field swears he delivered to you 
when you went to the telephone, so you would get it right ? A. I 
don't know. 

Mr. Wilson. — You don't know. That is all. 

The Witness. — It was the same in verbiage. 

Q. The same in verbiage? A. The same in verbiage. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. 

Anna L. Pfleiderer, a witness called in behalf of the State, 
being duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Direct examination: 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Are you in the employ of the "New York Bank E"ote Com- 
pany, Miss Pfleiderer ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And were you in the latter part of the month of March 
last? A. YeS;, sir. 

Q. Do you remember any occasion when you were — by the 
way, what is your business ? A. I have charge of the finishing 
room, which is on the third floor. 

Q. Were you on the third floor — was there an occasion when 
some one called from the business floor for Mr. Kendall, the latter 



356 

part of March? A. Well, I remember one time a call for Mr. 
Field, not for Mr. Kendall. 

Q. A call for Mr. Field? A. For Mr. Field, yes, sir. 

Q. From whom? To the best of my recollection, it was Mr. 
Fischer that called Mr. Field. 

Q. Yon heard Mr. Fischer testify here this afternoon ? A. 
This morning — this afternoon. 

Q. I am calling yonr attention now to the same occasion ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. You remember that occasion ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Yon remember that fact ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did yon transmit that call to anybody ? A. I told Mr. Field. 

Q. To Mr. Field ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where was Mr. Field ? A. He was on the finishing-room 
floor, the same floor that I was on. 

Q. Same floor you were on ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were at the telej)hone up there ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, what did he do? A. Mr. Fields? 

Q. Yes. A. The call was for him to go down in the ofiice. 

Mr. Byrne. — I object to v/hat the call was. 

Q. I haven't asked for that. Just tell what he did ? A. He 
went out of the room in a hurry — downstairs in a hurry. 

Q. Did you notice where he went ? A. Downstairs. 

Q. Did you see where.? A. 'No, I didn't see where. 

Q. Can you tell us when that was ? A. It was in the early 
part of two weeks ago, the week beginning March 24th. 

Q. It was during the week beginning March 24th ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can you tell us what day it was ? A. To the best of my 
recollection it was Tuesday. 

Q. You heard nothing of the conversation ? A. I^Tothing. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. 

Cross-examination : 
By Mr. Byrne : 

Q. You have talked this matter over v/ith whom ? A. With 
nobody. 

Q. With nobody? A. ISTo. 

Q. And since this occurred in the week beginning March 24, 
1913, you have talked this over with no one? A. No, sir. 



35T 

By Mr. Wilson : 

Q. Wlio is the coniidential steiiograplier ? A. Miss Allen. 
Q. Miss Allen is tlie confidential stenographer ? A. Yes, sir. 

Anna Y. Doyle, witness called in behalf of the State, being dnly 
sworn, testified as follows: 

Direct examination : 

By Attorney-General Carniody: 

Q. What is yonr f nil name ? A. Anna Y. Doyle. 

Q. Where do yon live? A. 29 Morton avenne. 

Q. Where? A. Albany, IS^ew York. 

Q. Where are you employed ? A. Telephone operator of the 
Senate Chamber. 

Q. In the Senate Chamber. Y'hat are yonr duties there? A. 
My hours of duty ? 

Q. Your duties first. What do you do there? A. I answer 
the calls on the switchboard. 

Q. You attend to the switchboard ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. For what company? A. For the State. I am hired by 
the State. 

Q. And when you get a call from out of town for somebody 
in the State or in the Senate, what do you do with it ? A. I locate 
the Senator — the party that's wanted. 

* Mr. Byrne. — If the Commission please, we do not believe that 
the Commission should be put to the necessity of having all of 
these records introduced here in a legal form. It is our belief 
and our privilege to say that we will accept any of these records 
that they will present to us and have them admitted in without 
the necessity of having the testimony of the operator. 

The Chairman. — It is not necessary to prove the usual course 
of business ? 

Mr. Byrne. — We will stipulate. All we ask is that they be 
presented to us for our inspection. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I will get along with it so quick 
that there won't be any delay. 

Q. Do you recall whether or not a call was put in on or about 
the 25th of ]\Iarch, by anyone for !N"o. 937 Spring, l^ew York? 



358 

Mr. Wilson. — That is objected to. 

The Chairman. — Objection overruled. 

Mr. Wilson. — What sense can there be in asking a girl who 
probably had ^Ye or six hundred calls a day ? 



The Chairman. — It is all right. He has asked her if she can 
ecoUect. 



A. I don't remember the call. 

Q. If such a call were received, what entry or record would you 
make of it ? A. I would write it first on a scratch pad and then 
copy it in my record book. 

Q. N^ow, I will ask you if you did receive or were asked by 
Senator Stilwell on March 25th, to get '' Spring 937 " ^N'ew York? 
A. I don't remember. 

Q. Or if you have any memoranda on your book to that effect ? 
A. I have a memorandum, but I don't remember the call. 

Q. What is your memoranda ? Is it a memorandum that you 
usually make in the regular course of business in receiving calls 
and making the proper connection ? 

Mr. Wilson. — ^Now, if you wait just a moment. If it is a ques- 
tion of a record here, there is no use of keeping these girls here 
to identify these calls. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — ^^Vhat is the use of objecting to it ? 

Mr. Byrne. — We want to facilitate matters. 

The Chairman. — If the Attorney-General desires to present 
the matter in this way, we are here to listen to it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I have asked Senator Stilwell 
whether or not on March 25th he called up the New York Bank 
]^ote office in the afternoon and he denied it. That's in the 
record. 

Q. IvTow proceed. Did you make an entry in your book in the 
regular course of business of a call that was put in on March 25th 
by Senator Stilwell ? 

Mr. Wilson. — We object. The book is the best evidence. 

The Chairman. — Objection overruled. 

Mr. Wilson. — Give me an exception. 



359 

Q. What is jour answer ? A. I first wrote it on a scratcli pad 
and copied it in the book. 

Mr. Wilson. — We don't hear the answer. 

The Witness. — I first wrote it in a scratch pad and copied it 
in a book. 

Senator Grifiin. — Will you kindly have the stenographer 
repeat the answers ? We can't hear over here. 

The Chairman. — All right, Senator. 

Q. Proceed. 'Now, what did you do — did you do that with 
the calls you received from Senator Stilwell ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Will you call our attention to the memorandum that you 
made ? A. Do you want the book ? (Handing book to the Attor- 
ney-General.) 

Mr. Byrne. — !N^ow I want to make this statement, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

The Chairman. — Yes. 

Mr. Byrne. — I understood General Carmody to say that Sena- 
tor Stilwell had denied having a conversation on the 'phone. My 
hearing may not be correct, but that is what I understood. Sena- 
tor Stilwell informs me that he never stated that he did not have 
a conversation on the 25th with the ISTew York Bank ]^ote Com- 
pany, and we believe this is merely impeding the fair business 
of this commission, because we are willing to have these calls, if 
they are shown us, stipulated onto the record. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I would have had them all in 
now if there had not been so much objection. 

The Chairman. — Proceed. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Do I understand that Senator 
Stilwell now admits that on the afternoon, about 4:30 or there- 
abouts, on March 25th, 1913, he called up Mr. Kendall of the 
Xew York Bank Note Company ? 

Senator Stilwell. — I have always admitted it, never denied it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That was denied. 

Senator Stilwell. — I beg your pardon. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Very well. We will have no mis- 
understanding. It is now admitted. Now take that admission 



360 

that on the 25th of March he called up '' Spring 937 " which is 
the phone number of the I*Tew York Bank Note Company, leaving 
the call with the witness and she made the connection, and had a 
conversation with the New York Bank Note Company? 

Mr. Wilson. — Who knows that ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He admits it. Can you tell me 
how long -that conversation lasted? You wouldn't know that? 

The Witness. — I got it from the toll operator three minutes. 
It is marked in the book. 

Q. In your book? A. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Wilson. — Novv^ your book shows from the toll operator that 
they charged for three minutes, is that right? 

The Witness. — Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. — We admit that, don't we ? 

Mr. Byrne. — Yes. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Is it admitted that on March 
26th, at 10 something, Senator Stilwell was called up by Mr. 
Kendall on the telephone ? 

Senator Stilwell. — What time was that? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — About 10 :30. 

Mr. Wilson. — Now we are willing to admit this. I assume 
that they are trying to show by the telephone operators that cer- 
tain calls were made on New York and certain calls on Albany 
from Nevv^ York. Now if that is the purpose and the only pur- 
pose, if they will give us a list of them or dictate them to the 
stenographer, so he may see when they were, the date and the hour 
as near as they can, in a moment's time we will tell them such as 
we admit and sucli as we deny, if we deny any of them. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Well, I will tell you — first tele- 
phone connmmication about 10:30 on March 26th. Mr. Ken- 
dall called up Senator Stilwell at Albany. Another conversa- 
tion over the telephone about 1 :30. 

Mr. Wilson. — Perhaps you had better let us look those right 
through. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — About 1 :30 on the same day. I 
want to see first whether you admit it or not; and another about 



361 

4:30 on the 2Gtli. In other words, these are the three telephone 
communications that were testified to by Mr. Kendall and by Mr. 
Field on the 26th of March. The hours were given by them and 
I want to know whether or not those that have been testified to — 
I want to know nov\' if you admit that these communications that 
were testified to by Mr. Kendall and Mr. Field on the 26th of 
March, occurred at the time or about the time that they say? 

Mr. Wilson. — jSTow, I think that we have offered all that we 
can. Xow, without examining these records ourselves to see 
what the hour was and without knowing whether — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I am willing to furnish you the 
memorandum if you will tell me whether or not yoii admit the 
conversations. 

Mr. Wilson. — ^o, we don't admit the conversations. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Then I will prove them. 

Mr. Wilson. — Well, I don't believe you will. 

The Chairman. — I do not think you quite imderstand that. 
Will you admit a conversation took place at those hours, not what 
the conversation was ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all I ask. 

Mr. Wilson. — All they want us to admit is that they had a talk ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. 

Mr. Wilson. — 'Now, if you will let us take your memoran- 
dums we can tell you very quickly. I thought he wanted us to 
admit Kendall told the truth. 

The Chairman. — He wants you to admit the !N'ew York office 
and the Albany office, Mr. Kendall and Mr. Stilwell, talked. 

iVttorney-General Carmody. — I understand these telephone 
communications are conceded to have occurred at the time men- 
tioned upon these slips, so there is no objection to the slips going 
in. 

Senator Stilwell. — Yes, that is, the slips just shown. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes, these are the ones (indi- 
cating) . 

The Chairman. — Have them marked for identification. 



362 

Attorney-General Carmody. — In evidence ? 

The Chairman. — Yes, in evidence. 

Mr. Wilson. — Is there anyone here who can read — knows 
what they mean? 

Mr. Kennedy. — Yes, the Manager is here. 

Attorney ^General Carmody. — Knows what ? 

Mr. WilsQ]!. — Knows what the figures mean. 

The slips referred to were marked State's Exhibits 25 to 30, 
respectively. 

E. S. Williams, a witness called on behalf of the State, being 
first duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Direct examination by Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Where do you live ? A. In Albany, iSTew York. 

Q. What is your business ? A. District Traffic Chief of the 
New York Telephone Company. 

Q. Are you familiar with its method of doing business ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. I show you some slips for the purpose of ascertaining what 
certain figures and letters on them mean (handing witness State's 
Exhibits 25 to 30, inclusive). Will you take the slips and ex- 
plain. Explain what entries are made on the slips, when the call 
is put in, and when the call is completed, in respect to the time 
and person making the call; just briefly, so we will know what 
the figures mean. A. This call, file 4:47 p. m. ; Main 3605, Stil- 
well, Albany, calling Spring 937, anyone at that number, 'New 
York city, ISTew York State. 

The Chairman. — What date ? 

The Witness.— On March 25, 1913. 

Q. Are those all the figures on there — 

Mr. Wilson. — What is that last '' anyone ? " 

Q. That would be anyone at that number ? A. Anyone answer- 
ing the telephone. 

Q. Did you give us the time on this ? A. File at 4 :47 p. m., 
and the conversation was started at 4:50 p. m. 

Q. And lasted how loug ? A. Lasted for one minute and thirty 
seconds. 



363 

Q. 'Now, I sliow you tiiat one on the 26th. Tell us when that 
took place? A. This ticket was filed at 4:21 p. m. 

Q. The tickets on the 26th; tell us how long those calls lasted? 
A. A call from 937 Spring, Kendall calling Main 3605, the Senate 
Chamber, Senator 'Stilwell, at Albany. 

Q. That is at what time ? A. At 10 :50 a. m. 

Q. How long did that — does that card show how long the 
conversation lasted? A. The conversation lasted for — it is a 
three minute charge. 

Q. That is a call from ISTew York? A. On March 27th. 

Q. The :N'ew York office? A. On March 27th. 

Q. Have you another one there at 1 :30 ? A. This is March 
26th. A call at 11 :0'5 a. m. from Spring 937, calling Main 3605, 
Senate Chamber, Stephen J. Stilwell, at Albany, on March 26th. 

Q. How long did that conversation last ? A. Three minutes. 

The Chairman. — That is 11 :05 a. m. 

The Witness. — At 11:05 a. m., yes, sir. 

Q. On March 26th. ;^ow, have you one later, on the 26th? 
A. On March 26th, at 1:36 p. m., Albany, Main 1513, calling 
Spring 937, Anyone, J^ew York city, ISTew York State. 

Q. How long did that last? A. The conversation started at 
1:35 — at 1:36 p. m., and lasted for two minutes, forty-five 
seconds, a three minute charge. 

Q. Another one that day ? A. At 4:21 p. m., March 26th, Main 
1513, calling Spring 937, at I^ew York city. The conversation 
started at 4:22 and last for one minute thirty seconds, a three 
minute charge. 

Q. The next one ? A. March 28th, at 1 :24 p. m. Main 1513, 
Albany, calling Spring 937. Anyone. ^N'ew York, New York. 

Tho Chairman. — Just a minute. How many calls were there 
on March 26th? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Three — four. 

Mr. Kennedy. — Three. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Three. 

The Chairman.— 10:50, 11:05 and 1:36? 

Mr. Kennedy. — One at 11:05, 1:35, and one at 4:22. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He has given that right. 



364 

The Cliairman. — 10:50, tlie first; the next one 11:05 — is 
that a mistake? 

Mr. Kennedy. — ^N'o, I guess that is iDrobahlj right. 

The Witness. — The 4:47 call was on the 25th. 

The Chairman. — That is right. 

The Witness. — That is an Albany call. 

The Chairman. — AYliat is yonr next one ? 

The Witness. — The next one on the 26th at 1 :36 p. m. 

The Chairman. — What did yon give ns about — 

The Witness. — 11 :05. 

The Chairman. — What did you give us about a three minute 
call at 11:50? 

The Witness. — That was on the 27th from J^ew York. Two 
'New York tickets and four Albany. 

Q. Get the 26th right. What is the first one on the 26th? \, 
The first one on the 26th is from New York at 11 :05 a. m. 

The Chairman. — That is right, I got it mixed. You stated 
that one on the 27th was on the 26th. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. 

The Chairman. — Three calls on the 26th. 

Q. 11:05; about 1:30 the next one — A. 1:36 on the 26th, 
from Albany, and 4:21 p. m. on the 26th from Albany. 

Q. The first one was from New York and the other two from 
Albany? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. On the 26th? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the one on the 27th was from illbany? A. From New 
York. 

Q. From JSTew York on the 27th ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you one on the 28th? A. On the 28th, at 1:24 
p. M., Main 1513, Albany, calling Spring 937, Anyone. N'ew 
York, IsTew York Conversation started at 1 :45 and lasted for one 
minute and fifty seconds. 

Q. That is all, is it? A. Yes. 

Q. How did you get the time of these talks ? A. Got the time 
on the Albany tickets from the Calculagraph on the back of the 
ticket. 



365 

Q. There are some dial-faced marks indicating the time when 
conversation started and when it ceased? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And on the 'New York tickets it is marked on the back, 
isn't it ? A. Marked on the back, yes. 

The Chairman. — Just one thing I don't understand. Was that 
one on February 27th, at 10:50 a. m., the call from Albany to 
New York — 

The Witness.— March 27th. 

The Chairman. — I meant March 27th. 

The Witness.— On March 27th, it was from Spring 937? 

The Chairman. — To Albany ? 

The Witness. — To Albany. 

Q. Only one on March 27th, I believe? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And one on the 28th ? A. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. — Where was that call to ? 

The Witness. — There are two numbers on the ticket ; one in- 
dicates 3605, which is the Senate Chamber, and the other the 
number at which they were reached is 1513, I believe. There 
are two numbers indicated. 

The Chairman. — What number is that ? 

The Witness. — That is the Senate Codes Committee, I believe. 

Q. That is what? A. That is the Senate Codes Committee. 
Q. And the number 937 is the number of the New York Bank 
iSTote Company? A. Yes. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. 

The Chairman. — I do not think it appears in the record what 
is the number of the Codes Committee. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — We have that. That is all. 

Mr. Byrne. — May we see those for a moment ? 

(Attorney-General Carmody hands Exhibits 25 to 30 to Mr. 
Byrne. ) 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It is conceded that the phone 
number of the ^N'ew York Bank E"ote Company is 927 Spring. 

Senator Stilwell. — Nine thirty-seven. 



366 

Attorney-General Carmody. — E"ine tliirty-seven Spring. I want 
to prove the time when these bills were reported out of the Codes 
Committee of the Assembly and the Codes Committee of the 
Senate. Is there any question about that ? 

Senator Stilwell. — ISTot at all. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Can you tell us when ? 

Senator Stilwell. — I don't know anything about the Assembly; 
only what the clerk says. 

Mr. Kennedy. — Mr. Van ISTamee is here. 

Senator Stilwell. — I take it it is a correct record, and it was 
reported out of the Senate on the 26th, and reported — that is 
reported out of the Committee on the 26th, and reported to the 
Senate on the 28th. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The 27th? 

Senator Stilwell. — Eeported out on the 26th. 

Senator Stilwell. — And handed in to the Senate by report of 
the Chairman on the 27th. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — And on March 28th, it is re- 
ported out of the Assembly Codes Committee. 

Mr. Van N^amee. — Reported undoubtedly. — Probably there 
was a meeting on the 27th, and on March 28 th, it was handed 
into the Assembly in the Journal. 

Attorney-General 'Carmody. — Is the Clerk of the Codes Com- 
mittee of the Assembly or anyone with the records of the Codes 
Committee here, so I can find out when it was reported. Is there 
any question that it was reported out on the 27th ? 

Senator Stilwell. — ^N'o. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — We will take that concession. 
Reported out of the Codes Committee on the 27th. Reported out 
by the Senate Codes Committee on the 26th to the Senate, and 
received in the Senate on the 27th. 

The Chairman.— That is bill 1188 ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Senate bill 1188, yes. 

The Chairman. — The Committee will take a recess of ten 
minutes. 

"Whereupon a recess was taken. 



367 



AFTEK RECESS. 

The Chairman. — Counsel, is there any objection to excusing 
the witness Fischer ? 

Mr. Wilson. — I don't know of any. 

The Chairman. — All right. Mr. Fischer, I wish to say you are 
excused from attendance during the rest of this investigation. 
Attorney-General, is there anything further that you wish to 
offer ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I have no further evidence. 

The Chairman.- — Mr. Lyon, is there anything further that you 
wish to offer ? 

Mr. Lyon. — Xo, sir. 

The Chairman. — All right, gentlemen. We are ready to hear 
the other side of this proposition. 

Mr. Wilson. — We understand that the — 

The Chairman. — We are willing to hear you if you have any- 
thing further to offer in this investigation. Proceed. 

Mr. Wilson. — In just a moment. We will proceed at once but 
Mr. Byrne is now out of the room and he is to examine the next 
witness. We expect to call Mr. Lewis. 

(Mr. Byrne thereupon entered the room.) 

Samuel Lewis, Jr., called as a witness for the defense, resumed 
the stand. 

Direct examination by Mr. Byrne : 

Q. Mr. Lewis, where do you reside? A. 417 East 85th street, 
^N'ew York City. 

Q. You are a practicing attorney before the courts of this 
State ? A. I am. 

Q. And have been for how long? A. About twelve years. I 
was admitted in 1902. 

Q. You have an office for the transaction of your business ? A. 
I have. 

Q. At what place? A. 299 Broadway, Xew York City. 

Q. And you have had a business place for how long for the 
transaction of your legal business? A. Ever since I have been 
admitted. 



368 

Q. During the years 1911 and 1912, Mr. Lewis, were you oc- 
cupied at any other occupation than the practice of your pro- 
fession? A. I was. I was a member of the Legislative Bill 
Drafting Department. 

Q. Situated at what place ? A. At the Capitol in Albany. 

Q. And that was during the sessions of 1911 and 1912? A. 
Yes, sir. . 

Q. Did you have a conversation during the month of February, 
1913, with Senator Stilwell? A. I did. 

Q. Eegarding a bill to be drawn in a matter that had relation- 
ship) to the bill which has been introduced here in evidence ? A. 
I did. 

Q. Will you state if you did anything after that conversation ? 
A. I spoke to Senator Stilwell just prior to my leaving Albany; 
he gave me — 

Q. What date was this ? A. I think it was the 19 th or the 
20th, the latter part of the week. I cannot positively set the date. 

Q. Of February? A. Of February, yes. It was either a 
Thursday or a Friday. I don't recall now whether I left here 
Thursday night or Fridaj^ There were two or three Fridays 
that I was in town, that is in Albany. 

Q. Go on from that point ? A. Senator Stilwell handed me a 
lead pencil memorandum containing a suggestion as to the draft- 
ing of a bill in restraint of trade. He explained to me what was 
desired or what the purport of the proposed bill was to be. I told 
Senator Stilwell that — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I object to the conversation be- 
tween Senator Stilwell and the witness. The fact that they had 
one is proper, but the conversation not being in the presence of 
the other party — 

Mr. Byrne. — I do not understand that the other party is a 
defendant here. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — 'No, but they are parties to this 
transaction and the evidence of what took place between wit- 
nesses on one side of the transaction is not competent unless 
brought to the attention of the other, or in the presence of the 
other witnesses. We have followed that rule closely in the other 
side of this case. No conversations have been permitted between 
any of the witnesses on the other side in the absence of Senator 
Stilwell. 



369 

Mr. Byrne. — Isn't it so that this is most material as to the 
acts performed? 

The Chairman. — Go ahead and tell the acts. 

Q. What did joii do after that conversation? A. Why, imme- 
diately after it I went back to 'New York. 

Q. What did you do in ISTew York ? A. And in New York I 
drafted a proposed bill in accordance w^itli instructions from 
Senator Stilwell. 

Q. Yes, what did you do after that ? A. Upon my return the 
following Monday, I presented that draft to Senator Stilwell, and 
he at that time showed me a typewritten memorandum, which 
also contained lead pencil notations. In comparing the bill that 
I had drafted and the second memorandum that Senator Stilwell 
gave to me, I found that I had not covered the case exactly, and I 
again redrafted this bill. 

Q. Then what did you do ? A. I then saw Senator Stilwell 
the following morning, Tuesday morning, and showed him the 
bill that I had drafted. He then stated that the people that were 
interested in the bill would be up '^ to-morrow " and that he pre- 
ferred that I go over the matter with them, as they knew more 
about it than he did, as they were the parties interested and 
aifected. 

Q. ]N'ow on the following day, did you meet anyone? A. I 
might state, Mr. Byrne — 

Q. One moment, Mr, Lewis. In the first conversation that you 
stinted that you had, without stating the conversation, did Senator 
Stilwell tell you that you would be compensated for your work? 
A. He did. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I object to that in the absence 
of the other parties. 

Mr. Byrne. — In what way can that be binding upon the other 
party in this investigation, in any otherwise than to bring out all 
the facts? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It is a violation of a very ele- 
mentary rule of evidence. It is a self-serving declaration, made 
by a party and introduced in his own behalf. It is impossible 
of contradiction, because it w^as not in the presence of anybody 
else who was interested. 

Mr. Wilson. — The rule that the Attorney-General invokes has 
no application to this investigation. 



370 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Am I told that we are not to 
follow rules of evidence in this investigation ? 

Mr. Wilson. — If you will let me make my statement. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I thought you had made it. 

Mr. Wilson. — The Committee hold, without knowing the pre- 
cise object of it, that he might not state the conversation. 'Now 
you will recall that Mr. Kendall has stated his conversation with 
Senator Stilwell. ]^ow what we desire to show is when the 
Senator turned this bill or this subject over to this young man to 
take to ^N'ew York, to see what he could do, that he gave him 
certain instructions and made certain promises to him. I^ow it 
may not have been in the presence of another party, but so far as 
this young man is concerned, he is entitled to some vindication 
here, I assume. He ought to have the privilege of saying what 
Senator Stilwell said to him on that subject. You will find it 
entirely competent, I assure you, as the case progresses. It is not 
only competent in my judgment, but exceedingly material. 

The Chairman. — For the time being, we are going to rule it 
out. If it is connected up, and is made competent, we can read it 
in later. Overruled. 

Q. ^Now, the following day, did you have a conversation with 
and meet Mr. Kendall and Mr. Field ? A. I did. 

The Chairman. — That was Wednesday, February 26th? 

The Witness.— 26th. 

Q. Upon this particular day, was there a hearing in the Sen- 
ate Chamber of the joint committees of the Assembly and Senate ? 
A. Later on, yes ; that is, it was set for that day. 

Q. !N"ow, Mr. Lewis, I ask you to go on and describe everything 
that occurred, where it occurred and what was said on this partic- 
ular day, between you. Senator Stilwell, Mr. Kendall and Mr. 
Field. A. I had occasion to go to the Senate Chamber, and on 
my way back to my desk, I passed Senator Stilwell. He was 
standing alongside of the rail talking to someone on the other 
side — the brass rail in the back of the Senate Chamber, and as I 
passed, he stopped me, " Wait a moment." We came out around 
in back of the rail near the — that big fireplace that's there, and 
he there said, '' Mr. Kendall, this is Mr. Lewis, the gentleman 
who drew your bill." We exchanged the ordinary greetings, and 



371 

I said to Mr. Kendall, ^' I am glad you are here, because I should 
like to have you go over this bill with me before it is introduced, 
because I am ignorant of Wall Street matters, and it is barely 
possible that I have not covered the exact points that you wish, 
because I know that I have made one mistake. I have corrected 
that, and I don't want any more, i^ it is possible to avoid them." 
Mr. Kendall then said that he didn't wish to do that at that par- 
ticular moment, and he then turned around and beckoned to Mr. 
Field, who approached, and Mr. Kendall then said, " Mr. Lewis, 
this is my cousin, Mr. Field. He is as familiar with this matter 
as I am. He knows all about it, and can give you all the informa- 
tion that you desire." He then turned to Mr. Field and said, 
'^ You accompany Mr. Lewis." I forgot to state that I did have 
the bill in my hand at the time, and showed it to him. He didn't 
read it, or did he look at it ; simply saw that I had a — I don't 
even know that he knew it was a bill, but he saw that I had a 
paper in my hand. I had them in my pocket. 

Q. Go on. A. I repeated to Mr. Field what I had said to 
Mr. Kendall, and Mr. Kendall then said, '^ You need have no 
hesitancy about using up his time, because I am paying him for 
it. I left Mr. Kendall. That is, Mr. Field and 1 left Mr. Ken- 
dall standing there, and we went into the revision room, and not 
the bill drafting room. 

Q. What did }ou do there? A. He sat down at my desk, and 
I showed him the bill that I had drawn, and also showed him 
two memoranda, all of which he took away with him, and which 
he ought to have, and gave him my idea as to the manner in which 
the bill should be drawn, or what the proposed law should pro- 
vide for, and we agreerl in the main as to the general features of 
the bill. There was some technical language. For instance, the 
word " security." I didn't have that exact language. He said 
that stocks and bonds were not all of the securities that were 
dealt in on the Stock Exchange, which I didn't know. He said 
there were also notes. I don't know now just what the notes are, 
and he said that the general term " securities " would cover them 
all. So I said, "Very well," and I took my lead pencil, and 
struck out the language that I had, and reformed that language, 
and as we went along, we changed a letter and a sentence here 
and there, and where we changed one word in one sentence, it 
became necessary naturally to change the wording throughout the 
bill. 



Q. How long did you remain there with him? A. Abont an 
hour and a half, I should judge. We finall}^ agreed upon a form 
of a bill, and I then said — or we were still discussing the mer- 
its of it, and I finally said to him, '' I^ow we are not getting — 
only let's do one thing at a time," and I took a Manila pad and 
wrote out the title of the bill, as has been introduced. That has 
never been changed, because Mr. Field didn't know enough about 
bill drafting to be able to change it, and then I took it sentence 
bv sentence, and as w^e finally decided that is the way it wants 
to remain, I rewrote it on this Manila pad, and when w^e had 
finished them, I turned around in my chair, and asked the sten- 
ographer, Mr. Kearney, to please run off five copies of that bill, 
and Mr. Field sat alongside of me while Mr. Kearney did that. 
I picked up the bills and gave him one. 

Q.V You took them up in this manner ? A. That is one of the 
original copies. I had three or four in my pocket. Two of them 
I gave to Senator Stilwell and two I kept for the purpose of 
giving it to some Assemblyman they might designate or who 
might be designated in the Assembly, and the bill you have there 
is the duplicate original. 

Q. One moment, I wdll introduce that. What did you do after 
you had made your preparations upon this bill in your office ? A. 

1 simply had it typewritten, that is all. 

Q. What did you do after you had it typewritten; did you 
leave your office? A. Not at that exact moment. Mr. Field 
then asked me when the bill w^ould be introduced and I told 
him that it would not be introduced until the following morn- 
ing, Thursday, that I should see to it that Senator Stilwell got 
the bill in time to introduce at the opening of the session on 
Thursday morning, the following morning. Mr. Field went out 
after that and T remained at my desk and finished my work. By 
this time it must have been some time after 2 o'clock or about 

2 o'clock. 

Q. Then what did you do? A. I went to the Capitol lunch 
room for the purpose of getting something to eat, because I had 
not had any luncheon up to that time and in the corridor I met 
Mr. Field, Mr. Kendall and Senator Stilwell. 

Q. What did you do ? A. At their invitation, at the invitation 
of one of them we all went into the dining room together, sat 
down at the table and I again entered into a discussion with all 
of them, with three of them, on the bill. 



Q. Are you able to tell at this time j^our situation as to liow 
you sat at that table i A. Yes. 

Q. Kindly state it. A. lEr. Kendall was to my right. Ivlr. 
Field was to my left, and Senator Stilwell was opposite me. 

Q. Xow, will you state what was said at that table and what 
3^ou did ( A. For some time we discussed the bill itself. Mr. 
Kendall was continuously preying upon the idea that what he de- 
sired was a civil penalty and the right to a civil cause of action. 

Q. As best you can state in his language what was said regard- 
ing the civil remedy ? A. He said, ^' Can't we make a provision 
in this bill so as to provide for the right of a civil suit to re- 
cover damages ? " And I said, ^' I think you can, ]\Ir. Kendall, 
but I wouldn't advise it." And he asked my reason for it and 
I gave it to him. I told him tliat in the first place I thought it 
was a dangerous proposition; that I did not think it would meet 
exactlv what he wanted. I told him that the law as a rule was 
opposed to penalties and that I did not see how he could state 
in a bill or in a law that the damages shall be a thousand dollars 
and get away with it. 

Q. What did he retort to that ? A. And he said that they 
could easily prove that and I then stated to him that if that is 
the fact I cannot see why you should have any cause for worry 
because if this bill as it now stands is enacted into law the law 
declares that this discrimination on the part of the Stock Ex- 
change is a wrong and you are therefore entitled to a remedy and 
if you are wronged and the law says you are Vv^ronged, you have a 
perfect right to go into a court of law and sue for such damages 
as you are able to prove, whether it is a thousand dollars a day 
or $40,000 a day ? 

Q. Did he make any reply to that ? A. Well, he said I think 
it would be a good thing to make them realize the exact con- 
dition of affairs and what they would be up against and he still 
insisted, and I then told him that it was my experience amongst the 
legislators and what I knew of the individuals that it would be 
poor policy to insert anything in a bill that would look like a 
strike measure or look as if someone was desiring to get a club 
held over the head of anybody, and that I did not think it was 
wise because it would undoubtedly meet that criticism. 

Q. Anything said in reply to that? A. He said, All right 
then, we will let it go as it is. 

Q. What other conversation if any did you have with him on 



374 

this occasion ? A. We then spoke about things in general, that 
is nothing in particular, and l\Ir. Kendall then said, '' Mr. Lewis, 
I told Senator Stilwell that I would pay the sum of $250 for the 
drafting of this bill.'' I said " I so understand and inasmuch 
as that is the arrangement you have made with Senator Stilwell 
and it is satisfactory to him it certainly is to me." 

Q. Then 'what else was said ? A. Nothing else was said at that 
particular moment — Oh, Senator Stilwell then said as soon as 
I finished speaking. Senator Stilwell said, '' That is the fee that 
goes to Mr. Lewis. That has got nothing to do with me. I want 
no part of it. Lie did the w^ork and he is entitled to the fee and 
that is a matter for you and Mr. Lewis to settle." That was ad- 
dressed to Mr. Kendall. 

Q. Then what was said by Mr. Kendall ? A. Mr. Kendall did 
not say a word after that, but a very short time after that, while 
Mr. Field and Senator Stilwell were talking, Mr. Kendall leaned 
over in his chair, and said, '' Mr. Lev/is, I suppose you prefer 
cash," and I stated loud enough for the rest of them to hear: 
" Mr. Kendall, I have no preference in the matter whatever. 
You send me your check, and I will send you a receipt. I am 
not doing anything that I need be afraid of, or ashamed of. I 
am engaged in a lawful business transaction, and prefer that the 
matter be conducted in that way. 

Q. What did he say to that ? A. He said, '^ I am very glad to 
hear that for tvv^o reasons; I have not quite that amount of cash 
with me, and it also relieves me some to think that all is right." I 
told him that so far as I was concerned, he could have no other 
kind of transactions. 

Q. What was then said, if an^^thing, after that ? A. We then 
again started in discussing that particular bill, the hearing that 
was about to come on in the Senate Chamber and legislation in 
general. I left the three of them at the entrance to the Senate 
Chamber, and went back to my desk, and I did not see him until 
— I think I saw them — 

Q. Do you remember that upon that occasion Mr. Kendall said 
to you that he would mail you a check on the following day ? A. 
Yes, he said to me that he would mail me a check immediately 
upon his return to 'New York. I simply said, '^ Yery well, sir." 
The following Saturday — 

Q. One moment. Do you remember giving Mr. Kendall, or 
Mr. Field, one of your business cards? A. I have not had a 
business card in a good many years. 



375 

Q. Did you give them a private calling card? A. I have a 
private visiting card with words engraved, " Mr. Samnel Lewis, 
Jr.," I have a bnnch of them in my pocket, I think. 

Q. I show yon this card, which yon used yesterday; is that a 
card of a similar character ? A. Yes ; that is the only card I have 
carried in some years. 

Mr. Byrne. — I ask that that be marked for identification. 

Card marked Defendant's Exhibit 13 for identification. 

Mr. Byrne. — I would ask, have you the original card of this 
character, which was given to either Mr. Field or to Mr. Ken- 
daU? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Mr. Field said he had such a 
card with an address written on, but he thought he left it at home, 
as I recall it. 

Mr. Byrne. — • Is there any objection to putting this card in 
evidence ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Not at all. 

Mr. Byrne. — I offer this in evidence. 

Card received in evidence and marked Defendant's Exhibit 13. 

Q. What did you do with that card ? A. I gave one of those 
cards to Mr. Field v/hile he still sat at my desk, just before he 
left me. I told him that if he wanted anything in regard to that 
bill, to Avrite to me, and I would be very glad to do anything I 
could for him. 

Q. Did you put anything on the card ? A. I wrote across the 
card, " Senate Revision Clerk, Capitol, Albany, N. Y." I gave 
Mr. Kendall a card later in the day while he was sitting in the 
Senate Chamber, waiting to be called upon, to address the joint 
committee at this hearing. 

Q. Yes ? A. I gave him a card with my 'New York address 
on it. 

Q. What was the address? A. 299 Broadway. 

Q. Written on it? A. That is all that card contained. 

Q. Written on it ? A. Written in lead pencil. I took out my 
lead pencil right there and wrote my address. 

Q. Mr. Lewis, is that all that occurred between you, Mr. Ken- 
dall, Mr. Field and Senator Stilwell, up to this particular Mon- 
day that you now refer to ? A. To the best of my recollection. 



376 

Q. Wliat next occurred that you have in mind in relationsliip 
to this matter ? A. Of course I gave Senator Stilwell the two 
copies of the bill, and he introduced them; the following Satur- 
day, March 1st — 

Q. Kot February 29tli ? A. i^o, March 1st; not this year, 
anyway. 

Q. Go on, what happened ? A. I do not recall whether my 
stenographer told me that Mr. Kendall had called up and I called 
him up, or whether I was actually in the office at the time the tele- 
phone call did come in, but at any rate — 

Q. Give us your best recollection ? A. I remember, I am posi- 
tive of this, that I did speak to Mr. Kendall on the telephone. 

Q. One moment ; you knev^^ Mr. Kendall's voice, did you ? 
A. Yes. That is, he said, '^ This is Mr. Kendall.'' And I recog- 
nized the voice as such. 

Q. Answer my questions ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you know Mr. Kendall's voice previous to the first of 
March, 1913? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you speak with Mr. Kendall on the telephone from your 
office on March 1st, 1913. A. I did. 

Q. State the conversation ? A. He asked me whether Senator 
Stilwell had introduced his bill. I told him that he had ; that the 
bill was introduced last Thursday. He then said, '^ Why, I 
haven't received any copies of it," and I said, '^ 'No, for the very 
simple reason that the printed copies are not yet in existence." I 
told him that the bill could not have gotten to the printer until 
late on Thursday night, and that they would be back in the Senate 
on Monday night, and that as soon as I reached Albany, I would 
send him some printed copies of the bill. He then said, " Mr. 
Lewis, I sent you a check yesterday." I am not positive about 
that. He said, " I sent you a check." I said, '' Mr. Kendall, if 
you sent it, I have not received it. It is possible that I left long 
before your check got there," but I said, '' It is all right, if it 
reaches Albany to-day, the postmaster will keep it until I get 
there." Yfhen I returned to Albany on Monday night, there was no 
check nor a word — 

Q. One mom^ent. Did you, when you returned to Albany, pro- 
cure printed copies of bill. Printed No. 1188 ? A. I did. 

Q. Y^hat did you do ? A. I enclosed them in an envelope, to- 
gether with a letter which has been marked in evidence. 

Mr. Byrne. — May I have those letters ? 



377 

The Witness.— Letter of March 3rd. 

Q. (Showing letter.) I ask you to read that letter. A. This 
is the letter which I wrote him Monday night : 

'' Mr. George H. Kendall, 

'^ Dear Sir. — Enclosed please find printed copies Senate Bill 
1188. Of course it has not been introduced in the ilssembly. If 
you wish this done, please advise me, and I will attend to same. 
I might mention that I have not yet received your check for $250, 
as agreed. If you wish anything further in regard to this hill, 
please let me know. 

'^ Yours trulv, 
^^ SAMUEL LEWIS, Jr." 

Q. E'ow, after you had written this letter and on March 4th, 
did you receive Mr. Kendall's check? A. I received it about 
eleven o'clock the following morning, and immediately wrote 
him another letter, acquainting him with that fact. 

Q. I show you this letter, and ask you to read it : A. " March 
5th, 1913. 

" Mr. George H. Kendall, 

'' New York Bank Note CompaJiy, 
''Dear Sir. — Received your check for $250 yesterday, and 
thank you for same." 

I evidently did not acknowledge it right away. 

" Our letters must have crossed each other in the mail." 

I received the check on Tuesday, at any rate, and evidently did 
not acknowledge it till Wednesday. 

Q. By the way, was there a letter enclosed in the envelope with 
the check? A. There was. 

Q. Have you that letter? A. I have not. 

Q. What became of that letter? A. I have not the faintest 
idea. 

Q. Can you now, to the best of your recollection, state for this 
Commission what that letter contained? A. They held a copy 
of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. — That is a copy of it. 

Q. I ask you to read that copy of letter ? A. That is the letter 
that I received. 



Q. Read that copy. A. " Febrnarj 27th. 

" Mr. Samuel Lewis, Je., 

'' Senate Revision Clerh, 

'^ My Dear Sir. — Enclosed please find check for $250, as per 
my promise of yesterday. 

'' Very truly yours, 

"GEOEGE H. KENDALL, 
I '' President. 

'' P. S. — " 

Q. What date ? A. That is February 2Yth. • '' P. S. Please 
send me a copy of the act drawn yesterday, and inform me if it 
was introduced to-day." 

Mr. Wilson. — Signed by whom ? 

The Witness. — That is a postscript. 

Mr. Byrne. — The signature on there is not under the post- 
script. 

The Witness. — E'o, I do not mean to say — 

Q. One moment, Mr. Lewis, allow me. A. Yes. 

Q. When next, Mr. Lewis, did you meet, if you did, Mr. Ken- 
dall and Mr. Field ? A. Why, I met them next on the 19 th of 
March, but I had communications with them in between that time. 

Q. What communication, if any, did you have with him? A. 
I believe that the following — the Saturday following the 3rd 
of March, wdiatever that date might be, it would be about the 9th 
of March, I believe, Mr. Field called me on the telephone at my 
office in New York. 

Q. Yes, state that conversation. By the way, did you know 
Mr. Field's voice? A. Yes. 

Q. You had talked to him previously, had you ? A. I had 
talked to him at greater length than I had Mr. Kendall. 

Q. And you knew it was Mr. Field, by his voice? A. Yes. 

Q. State the conversation ? A. He said to me, " Mr. Lewis, 
how does it happen that Mr. Cuvillier introduced that bill in the 
A^ssembly ?" ^ Why,' I said, he could not have introduced it ; 
Cuvillier does not know anything about it." He says, ^^ He 
has, and I read it in the newspapers." I said, '^ If that is so. 



379 

you surprise me ; I hope it is not so." He said, '^ Why ?" I told 
him, '' I don't think you want Mr. Cuvillier to introduce that 
bill, because Mr. Cuvillier — you don't want any individual to 
introduce it; the bill should be introduced by the Chairman of 
the Committee and have it a Committee bill, so the personality of 
the introducer does not enter." I explained to him how some- 
times fellows who take their duties too seriously, sometimes in- 
cur the ill will of their fellow legislators, with the result that 
they get very little. 

Q. This is in substance your conversation over the telephone? 
A. That is it, almost verbatim. 

Q. 'Now, I show you this letter, and ask you to read that let- 
ter ? A. Oh, Mr. Field then said to me, " Well, will you make 
sure of that, and if that is not so, will you have it introduced by 
the Chairman ?" I said, " Yes, the probabilities are that when I 
go up on Monday, I shall meet the Chairman of Codes, Mr. Mc- 
Grath, on the train, and I will speak to him about it." 

Q. Was there any communication by you to Field in response 
to that telephonic communication ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Will you kindly give it? A. When I reached Albany, I 
looked the matter up, and found that Cuvillier had introduced 
the bill, and I wrote him on March 10th: 

'^ Me. Geoege a. Field : 

''' Deae Sie. — Our worst fears have been realized. Cuvillier 
did introduce bill which is enclosed herewith. He simply saw 
the account in the papers, and introduced the bill. Did you see 
this morning's Times ? I think we can get over the Cuvillier 
handicap, though it may be hard. If you come up on Wednesday, 
don't fail to see me. 

'^Yours, 

" SAMUEL LEWIS, Je." 

Q. ]N^ow, will you refresh my memory with what the last 
question was ? A. Simply as to the Cuvillier letter. 

Q. Yes, I was about to ask you if you recognize in this any 
similarity to the bill introduced in the Senate (handing to wit- 
ness) ? A. That is the exact bill. 

Q. That is the exact bill? A. That is the original that I 
handed to Senator Stilwell which he introduced. 



380 

Q. I ask you, do you identify on that bill the handwriting of 
anyone ? A. That is Senator Stilwell's handwriting there in lead 
pencil. That is, it isn't mine. 

Q. You looked at the bill in the Assembly introduced by 
Assemblyman Cuvillier ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I ask you by viewing that bill if it is a true copy of the bill 
introduced by Assemblyman Cuvillier ? A. I didn't compare it 
with anyone. That is, I simply read the two papers at the same 
time myself, vdiich is a poor way to compare anything, but from 
such a comparison I have every reason to believe that they are 
identical. 

Q. Do you of your own knowledge know how Assemblyman 
Cuvillier became possessed of this bill ? A. Haven't the faintest 
idea. 



Mr. Wilson, — Right in that connection, will jou give us the 
concession that neither Mr. Field nor Mr. Kendall gave that bill 
to Cuvillier ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes, I believe that is the fact. 

The Chairman. — That is conceded. State your concession 
there. 

Mr. Byrne. — I will make it. It is conceded on the record that 
neither Mr. Field nor Mr. Kendall, representing the 'New York 
Bank 'Note Company, gave to Assemblyman Cuvillier a copy of 
bill kno^^m as ^' Print ISTo. 1188," being Senate bill of that number, 
or requested Assemblyman Cuvillier to introduce in the Assembly 
such a bill. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It does not seem to me that is 
a proper thing to have on the record here. It may be a reflection 
on a member of the Assembly. 

Mr. Byrne, — It is not a reflection. It is consecutive, that is 
all. 

Mr. Wilson. — Much has been made, to wit, of a letter written 
by Mr. Lewis. 

The Chairman. — All right. 

The Witness. — I might state if you will permit me to — 



381 

Mr. Byrne. — Just follow me. 

The Cliairman. — Go riglit ahead with your examination. 

Q. Xow, when w^as it next that tou met Mr. Kendall and Mr. 
Field ? A. On the 19th of March.'^ 

Q. When was it on that day that you met them? A. I met 
them originally about noon — saw them. 

Q. Where? A. In the Senate Chamber. 

Q. Did you have a conversation with them at that time in the 
Senate Chamber? A. Yes. 

Q. What was the conversation ? A. I asked them what brought 
them to Albany on that day, and they told me that they had a 
hearing on, on their bill. 

Q. Did they say where the hearing was to be? A. Yes, they 
said it was before Codes. I knew that anyway. I knew if it 
was a hearing it had to be before Codes. That's where the bill 
was. 

Q. What other conversation did you have with them at that 
time? A. I then said, ''Well, are you satisfied with the bill?" 
And they said " ITes." When I say '^ they " I don't know which 
one it v/as. My best belief is that it w^as Mr. Kendall said 
'' Yes, we are perfectly satisfied with the bill, but there is still 
some question in mv mind as to whether it w^ould not really be 
better to have the bill provide for a civil suit," and I smiled and I 
said '^ Why. I thought v/e had threshed that out pretty well, Mr. 
Kendall. If you v:ish such amendment, why, I will draw it for 
you and give it to Senator Stilwell. But please remember that 
I do not advise it and I do not think it would be a wise thing to 
do, but I do not care to argue the matter any further with you." 

Q. What did he say? A. Mr. Kendall then said, ''Well, you 
might prepare such an amendment and we will consider the ad- 
visability of having it introduced. At any rate we can talk it 
over with Senator Stihvell to-day." ^fr. Kendall then gave me 
a printed bill. 

Q. Xow one moment. I show you this bill or copy of bill 
(handing the v/itness). A. Mr. Kendall gave this to me and 
vv'ith this writing on it and I had that in my possession from that 
day until — 

Q. The present ? A. Well, imtil a day or so, when I gave it 
to you — until the beginning of the proceeding. 



382 

Q. In'ow, one moment. I would ask you to read what there is 
interlined there in ink ? A. " To be recovered in a civil action 
by any party aggrieved." 

Mr. Byrne. — I offer this in evidence. 

The Chairman. — It is already in evidence. 

Mr. Byriie. — This is already in evidence ? ISTo. 

Mr. Wilson. — It is in evidence, but for a connected history of 
the case, we would like to put it in on our side also. 

The Chairman. — All right. 

Mr. Byrne. — It is offered and accepted. 

The Chairman. — I do not know that there is any objection to it. 
Proceed. 

Said document was admitted and marked Defendant's Exhibit 
14. 

Q. Now, Mr. Lewis, did Mr. Kendall say anything to you about 
the handv/riting on this ? A. 'Not at that time, no. He later — 

Q. Did he say he had written this in ? A. Yes, he said that 
v/as his idea and he says, " Here is my idea." He said " I have 
written it out roughly there; that may not be correct language." 

Q. After that did vou have a further conversation with him? 
A. Yes. 

Q. What was it ? A. It v/as after that that I met him in the 
dining room of the Capitol restaurant here. 

Q. And with whom did you meet him ? A. Just as Mr. Eield 
said, with Mr. Field, Mr. Kendall and Senator Stilwell, and we 
sat exactly as we did before. Mr. Kendall sat at my right and 
Mr. Field at my left and Senator Stilwell opposite. 

Q. Yes. A. And we again entered into a discussion on that 
bill and at that time we had that very bill before us. 

Mr. Wilson. — That is with the interlineation ? 

The Witness. — ^With the interlineation. 

Q. Can you give us as best your recollection serves you, that 
conversation ? A. Why, he again said that if the bill was 



383 

amended in that way, that here were 12 other concerns that were 
interested and the Stock Exchange would realize that they were 
up against a pretty stiff proposition. I don't pretend to give you 
the conv^ersation verbatim, but I am giving you the substance of it. 

Q. We want your best recollection, Mr. Lewis. A. I am giving 
you the substance of it. 

Q. Yes. A. And he thought it would be a good thing. 

Q. Yes, did you say anything to him about the bill ? A. I said 
to him that I did not think it would be a good thing and irre- 
spective of the policy of the amendment I told him that if the bill 
were amended now it would mean the loss of anywheres from one 
to two weeks; that the bill would have to be reprinted, and that 
would take two days ; that it would then be necessary for the bills 
to lay on the desks of the Senators three days, and if there was a 
Friday or Saturday intervening that means you have to wait un- 
til Monday until anything is done. I said if time is not of the 
essence and is of no importance to you, why go ahead if you see 
fit to amend it and amend it, but if you are really anxious to get 
this bill through at once I would advise against an amendment. 
I said also bear this in mind that the bill will not take effect until 
September 1st any^vay so I do not know why you should be in 
any particular haste about the bill except that it is always wise 
to strike while the iron is hot. 

Then he said, since it doesn't take effect until September 1st, 
it might be just as well to amend it. 

I said, very well, if you do wish it I will draft the amendment 
for you. Then let me know when you want it and I will do it. 
It won't take very long for me to do that. 

I never heard anything more from Mr. Kendall about that 
bill at all. I never had anything more to with him. 

Q. That was the last conversation and the last time that you 
had anything to do with him at all regarding this bill ? A. Yes, 
sir. I want to state at this point that I did not give my entire 
conversation with Mr. Kendall on either one of those two occasions. 

Q. You have given it to the best of your recollection ? A. 'No, 
I have not given it to 'the best of my present recollection. My 
memory has been refreshed. 

Q. Have you since giving this testimony refreshed your 
memory by connecting links of mine as to something other that 
was suggested by Mr. Kendall regarding this matter that is per- 
tinent to this issue ? A. Yes. 



384 

Q. If so, state it ? A. On the first occasion that I met Mr. 
Kendall, he immediately, after Senator Stilwell left ns, wanted 
to know whether I had drawn the hill and I said yes, and I said 
to him, Mr. Kendall, why don't you have your own lawyers draw 
this hill ? 

He said, my own lawyers are not familiar with legislative 
matters and I told Senator Stilwell that I preferred to have some- 
one who was an expert in these matters. 

I said : Well I am surprised that you did not go to the hill draft- 
ing department. Mr. Eohert C. Cummings is the foremost hill 
drafter in this State and he drafted all the Stock Exchange hills. 

He said that is the reason I did not wish to go there, because 
he drafted the Stock Exchange bills and I was afraid to go there 
with this bill for fear that the Stock Exchange would get next to 
him and they would slip a joker in on me. 

Q. Does your recollection serve you as to upon what particular 
occasion this statement was made by Mr. Kendall ? A. That was 
made at the time when I first saw him. 

Q. E^ow, is there anything else by way of conversations that 
you had with Mr. Kendall or with Mr. Field that at this time 
serves your memory as not having been told ? Do you remember 
Mr. Kendall saying to you anything about particular businoos 
that would come to you and the emoluments thereof? A. That 
was on the second conversation, but before I get to that I should 
like to make this statement in regard to the first occasion that I 
saw Mr. Field. When he left my desk with the copy of the bil], 
the original bill, that one of the carbon — Exhibit whatever it is 
— copies of the bill you now hold in your hand — -he also said I 
should like to have this other memorandum and he took with 
him — He picked up two sheets of paper which I had and which 
were pieces or parts of one of the bills which I drew and I said 
to him while you are taking the memoranda take it all and I gave 
him everything I had on my desk connected with that bill and 
the drafting thereof. 

Q. 'Now, do you remember anything said by Mr. Kendall to 
you regarding his employment of you ? A. Yes. 

Q. For the purpose of doing certain things as an attorney ? A. 
I remember him very well — 

Q. Tell us what was said ? A. In the course of the conversa- 
tion after we had been talking about this amendment — 



385 

Q. Yon mean the interlineations ? A. The interlineations. 
He stated yon will have nothing to regret for your connection and 
interest in this matter becanse I intend to giA^e you all the busi- 
ness that m.ay arise* out of it. You see if the Stock Exchange 
doesn't obey this law it will mean that I will bring a great num- 
ber of actions against them and there is no one in a better position 
to prosecute those actions than you are because you drafted the 
bill and know all about it. If they do obey the law my business 
will increase tremendously and I will be able to give you a great 
deal of business ; so either wav it ffoes vou are bound to benefit. 
I did — very much. 

Q. ]\[r. Lewis, will you kindly state if you recollect anything 
that was stated bv Air. Kendall to vou reffardins' his satisfaction 
at your work and the price paid therefor? A. On the 19th, when 
I met Mr. Kendall in the Senate Chamber I again stated to him 
that I had received the check and I said to him : Mr. Kendall, the 
mails in Albany are not the surest in the nation. Deliveries 
here are sometimes poor, particularly on Monday night and I got 
your check Tuesday morning about 11 o'clock. I said, but inas- 
much as I got it why I am satisfied and I hope you are. 

Did you tell him there was an Assemblyman of the same name 
and he sometimes — A. I said to him several of my letters have 
been delayed due to the fact that there is a Dave Lewis in the 
Assembly, and the letter carrier, Post ofiice department, some- 
times sends my mail to the Assembly Chamber and then before 
Assemblyman Lewis gets the letter and realizes he is not the 
party and it is sent back to me, sometimes a day or two is likely 
to elapse. I said it may be that was the cause for the delay in 
this instance. 

Lie then stated to me that it was all right. He was glad I got 
the check. He said, '^ Why I am very much pleased. You did 
a splendid piece of work there and I feel much elated. I feel I 
have gotten my money's worth and I hope you feel you have 
gotten all you are entitled to." I simply said to him — 

Q. That that was the fact ? A. Xo. That was the arrangement 
that was made and I had no kick coming. 

Q. Mr. Lewis, of this $250 which you received, check dated — 
A. February 2Tth. 

Q. February 27th, 1913, made payable to the order of Samuel 



386 

Lewis and endorsed by you as Samnel Lewis and Samuel Lewis^ 
Jr.^ and endorsed over to the cashier of the Stanwix hotel, of that 
check of $250 did yon give one penny of that check to Senator 
Stilwell ? A. I did not. 
Q. I ask yon now. 

The Chairman. — Senator Griffin desires you to ask this quos- 
tion^ Mr. Byrne. 

Q. Was there any payment of any character whatsoever of this 
$250' that you gave to Senator Stilwell ? A. N^one whatever. I 
owed Senator Stilwell $10 which I paid him. 

Q. One moment. That may be brought out in another manner. 
I ask you if you ever had any arrangement with Senator Stilwell 
of any nature w^hatsoever or any character that you were to pay 
any part of this $250 received by you upon this check, to Senator 
Stilwell ? A. Never was any such arrangement or any mention 
of such an arrangement, but to the contrary. 

Mr. Byrne. — One moment. 

The Chairman. — Senator Griffin, does that ask your question? 

Mr. Byrne. — Did I ask that question fully that you wanted 
there, Senator? 

Senator Griffin. — Yes, and you elaborated. 

Mr. Byrne. — I made it satisfactory to you ? 

Senator Griffin. — Yes. 

The Chairman. — That is all right. Proceed. 

Q. Mr. Lewis, when were you first informed and by whom that 
you would be compensated for drawing this bill ? A. Senator 
Stilwell. 

Q. When? A. On about the 19th of February before — at the 
time that he gave me his lead pencil memorandum. 

Q. As to the exact date you are not certain ? A. It was either 
Thursday or Friday, whichever day I left Albany in that week. 
I can tell very readily by looking at the records in the Revision 
room as to whether I was here Friday or not. 



387 

Mr. Wilson. — We again ask the Committee to hold that that 
conversation is competent. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — We withdraw the objection. 

The Witness. — May I say one word before you release me. I 
want to straighten out this Cuvillier matter. In my conversation 
with Mr. Field I was very particular to explain to Mr. Field that 
Mr. Cuvillier was a very dear friend of mine and that Cuvillier 
had a habit of objecting to every bill that appeared upon the 
calendar and that for that reason and that reason only I did not 
think it was wise for him to continue the handling of that bill, for 
fear that somebody might have a grudge against him because he 
had moved to strike out on one of his bills or been holding up the 
Assembly by one of his lengthy arguments, and it was for that 
reason only ; and I impressed upon Field at the time — 

Q. That was at that conversation ? A. That was part of my 
telephone communication with Field. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — There was a question asked the 
witness that I objected to. I withdraw my objection. Do I under- 
stand the question is withdrawn, asking for conversation between 
Mr. Stilwell and Mr. Leivis ? 

Mr. Wilson. — I thought I wanted that conversation. You ob- 
jected and they held that the conversation between him and Mr. 
Stilwell was not competent, nor the instructions that he gave him 
about the bill. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — 'Now I withdraw the objections. 

Mr. Wilson. — ^My associate thinks we have asked sufficient. He 
is not here and I defer to his judgment. I don't care to go back 
and patch up a conversation. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I withdraw the objection. 

Mr. Wilson. — We don't care to ask it. 

The Chairman. — I think the Chair made a ruling for the time 
being that it would hold the matter open, but later if it was found 
to be competent it would be admitted. 

Mr. Wilson. — We have all that we want in now. 



388 

Attorney-General 'Carmody. — Yon don't ask for it now ? 
Mr. Wilson. — 'No, 

Cross-examination. 
By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. What are the duties of a Revision clerk, Mr. Lewis ? A. 
The duties of the Revision clerk are to see that all bills that are 
advanced to third reading are in proper form in accordance with 
the Legislative Law or in accordance with the rules of the Legis- 
lature, that the form is correct ; that a bill does what it is supposed 
to do ; that is, if it is intended that section 34 of the Legislative 
Law be amended that the Code of Civil Procedure is not 
amended ; that the title of the bill and the body of the bill agree, 

Q. I did not expect to get so much information in that simple 
question? A. I am sorry I disappointed you. 

Q. You have nothing Avhatever to do with the drawing of bills ? 
A. Absolutelv nothina;. 

Q. LlaA^e you been engaged in drawing bills as revision clerk? 
A. I don't quite understand your question. 

Q. Read it ? A. I heard the question. 

Q. Just a moment. If you don't understand it I will have the 
stenographer read it. 

Mr. AYilson. — He heard it, but he says he did not imder- 
stand it. 

Q. Let the stenographer read it? A. I do not think that the 
reading by the stenographer of that question will do any good 
at all. 

Q. Let us try it. 

The stenographer read the question as follows : ^' Have you 
been engaged in drav.dng bills as Revision Clerk ? '^ A. I don't 
want to quibble with you. 

Q. Will you answer that question? A. I don't know — not 
in that form unless you explain what you mean by engage. 

Q. Say yes or no. Can you or can't you answer it ? A. I 
can't answer that question. 

Q. Since you have been employed as Revision Clerk in the 
Senate have you been engaged in drawing bills that were intro- 
duced into the Legislature ? A. I have. 



389 

Q. To what extent ? A. Why, I probably have drawn 15 or 
20 bills that have been introduced in the Legislature this session. 

Q. For pay ? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. For how many of them have you received pay? A. Only 
one. 

Q. And this is the only one? A. The only one. The other 
bills were drawn for members of the legislature who had been my 
personal friends. 

Q. Then it is not part of the duties of the revision clerk to 
draft bills ? A. l^o, sir. 

Q. Do you regard it as proper when you draft a bill, to receive 
pay for it ? A. If I am asked — 

Q. Can you answer that by yes or no ? A. I positively do. 

Q. Positively do what ? A. Think it is perfectly proper for 
me to expect and receive pay for' anything I do that my duties 
do not call for. 

Q. You get a salary as revision clerk ? A. Yes sir, for doing 
specific work. 

Q. Now then, will you please differentiate between your duties, 
those duties that you perform for pay or for your salary, and 
that you may perform upon a retainer ? A. My duties as 
revision clerk are simply to revise such bills as the Senate ad- 
vances to the third reading, and in accordance with the legisla- 
tive law and the rules of the Senate. If I did anything beyond 
that for anybody, I had a perfect right to continuing practicing 
law and charge for it. 

Q. And you see no impropriety in your charging for drawing 
bills while you are engaged as revision clerk ? A. Absolutely 
none. 

Q. xibsolutely none ? A. One has nothing whatever to do 
with the other. 

Q. And you have a right to receive pay from anybody who 
pays you ? A. I think I would have a perfect right to receive 
pay from anybody, even were I a member of the legislative bill 
drafting department. 

Q. You have a right also to receive pay for revising a bill ? 
A. That is a different proposition entirely. 

Q. That is a different question also, and will you answer it? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is your answer ? A. That is a different proposition ; 
it is a different question also. 



390 

Q. Will jou answer it ? A. There is no one — I was paid for 
revising those particular bills that came to me in the regular 
course of business. 

Q. Then is it your answer that you had a right to take pay for 
revising bills ? A. l^o sir, if you mean for the Senate. 

Q. You have answered the question. 'Now is it your answer 
that you have not got a right to receive pay for revising bills ? A. 
You will have to frame your question differently. 

Q. Will you answer that? A. I cannot answer that, either 
yes or no, because I could answer it either way truthfully. 

Q. You could either way, and you have a right, or have not a 
right? A. Correct. 

Q. Which do you say ? A. I won't say either one or the other. 
If you will put a fair question to me, I will answer it. 

Q. Will you say both ? A. If you so wish it. 

Q. How do you wish it ? A. I haven't any desire in the m.at- 
ter at all. 

Q. I haven't. I am asking you questions. I would like to 
know whether you regard it as proper to receive pay for revis- 
ing a bill? A. If it is a bill that has been introduced in the 
Senate, I do not think it is proper for me to receive pay, but if 
some one comes to me with a bill outside of my prescribed duties 
and asks me to revise it, using up my time for that purpose — 
my experience, I have a perfect right to charge for it. 

Q. For revising? A. For revising, or doing anything else. 

Q. Then what bills must you revise under your salary? A. 
Those bills that are advanced to the order of third reading by the 
Senate. 

Q. You may revise them before they reach third reading ? A. 
If I so choose. 

Q. And take a private retainer for pay. You don't do that 
under your salary, but when it gets to a third reading, the privi- 
lege of retainer ceases, and your salary sets in again ? A. I don't 
think you are putting a fair interpretation. 

Q. Will you tell me in w^hat respect it is not fair? A. It is 
unfair in this respect : That if Attorney-General Carmody called 
on me and asked me to revise or look over — you used the word 
" revise," and I understand that the word '' revise " is susceptible 
of quite some meaning. 

Q. Apparently so. A. If I revise a bill for anybody outside 



391 

of those connected directly with the Legislature^ and I am speak- 
ing now of a bill that is not in the Senate — 

Q. You are getting away from my question ? A. I told you 
that in the very beginning. 

Q. You started to say if Attorney-General Carmody asked you 
to revise a bill, then you got away from that. What is the rest of 
that ? A. And the bill had not been introduced in the Senate up 
to that time, I would have a perfect right to make a charge for it, 
and receive a fee for it and give a receipt. 

Q. That is, a bill that had been introduced in the Assembly — 
just wait a moment, Mr. Lewis — before it got into the Senate, if 
it needed revising, if you revised it before it was introduced into 
the Senate, you would have a right to charge for it ? A. 'No. 

Q. Let me understand. A. I will use the word legislature 
then instead of Senate, because if a bill is introduced in the 
Assembly, and goes over to the Senate, in the natural course of 
events it would come to the revision clerk's desk anyway, and 
while I do not think it would be a crime to accept pay, I don't 
thank it would be nice. 

Q. To accept pay for what? A. To accept pay for revising a 
bill for anybody, doing the very work of the revision clerk. 

Q. I understood you to say a little while ago that you could 
take pay for it ? A. Pay for anything that was fair and honest. 

Q. And that included revising a bill, up to the time of third 
reading? A. Yes. 

Q. ISTow, repeat that. 

Mr. Wilson. — I object. 

A. I say now — 

Mr. Wilson. — There ought to be some end to it. 

The Chairman. — I think the witness is amply able to take 
care of himself. 

Mr. Wilson. — He said he could charge even the attorney- 
general. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I don't think he could. 

Mr. Wilson. — I object to it upon the ground this cross- 
examination is not germane to any examination or investigation 
that is pending here. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 



392 

Mr. Wilson. — You are not investigating this man, as I under- 
stand it. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

Mr. Wilson. — Will you give an exception ? 

Q. Answer the question. A. Will you please repeat it ? 

The Chairman. — We will adjourn till ten o'clock tomorrow 
morning. 

All witnesses in this investigation will report at ten o'clock 
to-morrow morning. 

Adjourned to Friday, April 11th, 1913, at 10 a. m. 



393 



Albany, K Y., April 11, 1913. 
In the Matter of the Investigation by the Judiciary Committee of 
the Senate of the State of New York, into the Charges Preferred 
by George H. Kendall, Esq., against State Senator Stephen J. 
Stilwell. 

The Chairman. — Quorum present. The investigation is ready 
to proceed. 

Attorney-General Carmodj. — Mr. Chairman, I notice on page 
364 the dates of reporting the bills out of the Codes Committee in 
the Senate and Assembly are correctly given, but the month is not 
given. I would like to have it appear that those answers are cor- 
rected by inserting the month of March. 

The Chairman. — 'No objection. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The first one on the 26th of 
March. No, that is not the pag^ either. I did not have the page 
right, but in that portion of the minutes where the dates of tne 
reporting of the bills out of Committee, the month is not given, 
but the day of the month is correctly given. I thought I would 
like to have it corrected by inserting the month of March. 

Senator Thomas. — 366, General. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is it. 

Senator Pollock. — Eeported out on the 26th of March. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Mr. Lewis. 

Samuel Lewis, Jr., recalled. 

Cross examination continued: 
By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Mr. Lewis, you stated last night that this is the only work 
for which you received pay, aside from your salary during the 
present session? A. Work that I did in connection with any- 
thing concerning the legislature, yes. Of course I maintain my 
office in ^N'ew York. 

Q. What is your salary? A. $1,500 for the session. 

Q. Do you do any work at your office in New York connected 
with the legislature, for pay ? A. I did — this very bill. 



394 

Q. Outside of this ? A. 'No, I did no other work at my office 
in connection with the legislature. That is why I made that 
qualification in my answer, yes. 

Q. Did I understand you to say that the price of your services 
was fixed for doing this work hefore your attention was called to 
it at all ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You had nothing to do about fixing a price? A. Abso- 
lutely nothing. 

Q. That was fixed by Senator Stilwell before you knew any- 
thing about the transaction ? 

Mr. Byrne. — ITow I will object to that as being fixed by 
Senator Stilwell, and ask that it be stricken out on the ground 
that it is not the fact, or the testimony does not show that. 

The Chairman. — Objection overruled. 

It was consented to by Senator Stilwell. 

Q. Please answer the question, if you can ? A. I do not know 
that it was fixed by Senator Stilwell. 

Q. The amount in some way was arrived at by Senator Stilwell 
and Mr. Kendall, before you knew anything about it? A. That 
is correct, sir. 

Q. The first time that you met Kendall and Field was on the 
26th of February ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That agrees with their statement ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the place agrees with their narrative ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In the Senate ? A. In the Senate Chamber, yes, sir. 

Q. You say that that meeting took place during a regular session 
of the Senate ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They say that that meeting took place while the Senate was 
in Joint Committee, or while there was a Cormnittee hearing on 
the Stock Exchange bills. That is true, is it not? A. That is 
what they say, but it isn't so. It couldn't have been. 

Q. E'o, you need not do any more than answer my question. I 
want to understand the point of difference between you. A, That 
is the point of difference. 

Q. That is the point of difference ? A. Or a point of difference. 

Q. It is a fact that in front of the railing in the Senate you were 
introduced on that occasion by Kendall to Senator Stilwell? A. 
I don't think I said in front. I believe I said the other side of the 
railing. 

Q. Inside or outside ? A. Outside. 



395 

Q. Well, tliat is wliat I mean ? A. Well, if you mean that is in 
front, why yes. 

Q. In front of the railing ? A. We don't speak of it that way. 

Q. That is where Kendall said it took place ? A. And we are 
agreed on that. 

Q. And Mr. Field was present when that occnrred ? A. Mr. 
Field was standing a few feet away when that occurred. 

Q. He was there ? A. Yes, within plain sight. 

Q. He came in with Mr. Kendall ? A. Of course I assume that 
is so. 

Q. Thus far you are in accord ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I^ow, what did Senator Stilwell say in that introduction? 
A. He said, " Mr. Kendall, this is the gentleman that drew your 
bill. You had better go over it with him, and Mr. Kendall." I 
showed Mr. Kendall the bill, because he had not seen it up to 
that time. I had it in my pocket. 

Q. Just state what you did. You don't know whether he had 
seen it or not? A. Oh, yes, I do. He couldn't have seen it. I 
had it in my pocket. 

Q. Go on, we will accept your conclusion? A. And I began 
discussing the bill with him, told him I was not familiar — 

Q. I ask before we get to that part, for all that was said 
while Senator Stilwell was there? A. That is all that was said 
while Senator Stilwell was there. Senator Stilwell simply said, 
" Mr. Kendall, this is Mr. Lewis, who drafted," or " the gentle- 
man that drew your bill," and turned around and said, " Mr. 
Kendall, the gentleman I told you was coming up to-day and 
who is interested in the bill," and he went back to his seat. 
Everything that happened after that happened — 

Q. I didn't understand the latter part of that answer. I 
understood that you were introduced and he said ^^ This is Mr. 
Lewis, the man that drew your bill " ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is the rest ? A. And then he turned to me and said, 
" Lewis, this is Mr. Kendall, the gentleman for whom the bill 
was drawn," or words to that effect; I don't remember his exact 
language. 

Q. Is that all? A. He used language to inform me that Mr. 
Kendall was the one for whom the bill was drawn and the one 
who was interested. 

Q. All that took place was on the subject of the bill and the 
parties interested in that conversation? A. So far as Senator 



396 

Stilwell was concerned, yes. He went back to Ms seat then. I 
remained there for a few minutes talking to Mr. Kendall and 
when I asked him to come out of the Senate Chamber so that 
we could talk about the bill he then beckoned to Mr. Field and 
Mr. Field came over for the first time. That was the first time 
that I saw Mr. Field. 

Q. So Mr. Field was not introduced at the time you were ? 
A. 'No; sir; Mr. Kendall introduced me to Mr. Field, introduc- 
ing him as his cousin ; that is the only way I knew he was his 
cousin. 

Q. And you and Mr. Field went into the Committee ? A. 'No, 
sir. 

Q. Where did you go ? A. Went to my desk in the Kevision 
room. 

Q. That is what I mean ? A. That is not the Committee room. 

Q. Did he have some draft of a bill with him that he produced ? 
A. I don't know ; he did not show me any. 

Q. Did he have any before you at all during that hearing ? A. 
ISTo, sir. At no stage did he ever show or exhibit to me a draft or 
any paper of any kind other than what I gave him. 

Q. What did you have ? A. I had a bill, all drafted, typewrit- 
ten. I had a pencil memorandum, and I had two typewritten 
memoranda with pencil marks on them. 

Q. You had received from Senator Stilwell a draft of a bill 
prior to that, I understand? A. I received a short lead pencil 
memorandum which in itself was rather unintelligible without 
further explanation, which Senator Stilwell gave me. 

Q. That is the first you heard about this bill ? A. That is the 
first. 

Q. Now, I want to show you Exhibit 6 which we have intro- 
duced in evidence and have you point out wherein Exhibit 6 dif- 
fers from the draft that Senator Stilwell gave you ? A. Senator 
Stilwell gave me ? 

Q. Yes, you said that he gave you something written on a piece 
of paper, that is the first you. heard about this bill? A. It was 
not anything like this at all. 

Q. Point out in what respect ? A. In every respect. 

Q. Then there must be one respect that you can call my atten- 
tion to ? A. I will tell you, there is not a single thing about this 
language that is similar to anything on the first memorandum that 
Senator Stilwell gave me. 



39Y 

Q. Have you the memorandum that he gave you ? A. Mr. 
Field ought to have that. He took that with everything else. 

Q. What was that? A. It was simply a small — a half a sheet 
of one of these pads with a memorandum as to the text of what he 
wanted. 

Q. Was there a form of a bill there ? A. ^N^o^ no form or any- 
thing else, 

Q. A form of amendment to the penal law? A. ]lTo. 

Q. Any memorandum there to guide you in the drafting of 
the bill ? A. 'No, not at that time, none whatever. 

Q. Where did you get that information ? A. What information, 
sir. 

Q. The information from what you drafted what you drafted ? 
A. I have told you from this memorandum that Senator Stilwell 
handed me, it simply had on it an amendment to prevent discrim- 
ination by Stock Exchange in favor of American Bank Note 
Company. 

Q. That was v^hat was on the amendment that Senator Stilwell 
handed you ? A. That is as near as I can remember. 

Q. I just ask you this, see if you understand the question be- 
fore you answer me again. I ask you if it purported to be an 
amendment to the Penal Lav/ or to any law, the draft that he gave 
you, and I understood you to say that it did not ? A. You are 
using technical language to a lawyer. 

Q. No, I am talking to a lawyer and using legal terms ? A. And 
I am answering you. 

Q. You understood that question and you answer no to it ? 
A. I understood that question to be a technical question and I 
answered in a technical manner. Did I tell you, sir, it was simply 
a memorandum that did not refer to the Penal Law and did not 
refer to any other law. Senator Stilwell did not know where it 
belonged. 

Q. JSTow, will you tell me what it was ; give its contents if you 
can ? A. I can only give it to you in substance. 

Q. Give it to me in substance? A. It simply had a few lines 
in lead pencil '' to prevent discrimination by the Stock Exchange " 
— it was not — ^' restrained '' — " to prevent restraint of trade." 
I think was the exact language that Senator Stilwell used, " on 
the part of the New York Stock Exchange in favor of the Ameri- 
can Bank Note Company." 

Q. Did it mention New York Stock Exchange as the party to 
be restrained ? A. Yes, sir. 



398 

Q. And the ISTew York Bank 'Note Company as the party to be 
benefited? A. No. 

Q. You stated it did? A. I beg your pardon. I specifically 
said the American Bank l^ote Company. 

Q. The American Bank E'ote Company was to be benefited or 
restrained ? A. Was not to be benefited. 

Q. The American Bank Note Company was to be restrained ? 
A. 'No, sir. 

Q. Then the New York Stock Exchange was to be restrained ? 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Let us understand it now. I think my language is very 
clear. A. Have the stenographer read it. 

Q. State it over again. Whsit did it provide? A. You say 
providing. It was not a question of providing. 

Q. Please proceed and tell me what it contained? A. It pro- 
vided nothing. It simply contained the fact that there was a bill 
to be drawn to prevent the restraint of trade on the part of the 
New York Stock Exchange, in favor of the American Bank Note 
Company. I did not know at that time that there was a New 
York Bank Note Company, nor did I until I received Mr. Ken- 
dall's letter. 

Q. Those terms were mentioned in the bill, or in the memoran- 
dum you had? A. Yes. 

Q. That is all you took that Senator Stilwell handed you when 
you went into the revision room with Mr. Eield? A. Plus such 
other memorandum that I made on the same slip of paper in my 
talk with Senator Stilwell at that time. 

Q. How long did you remain in that room ? A. When ? 

Q. Then ? A. I don't know what you mean by ^' then." Will 
you please be more specific. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Bead the question. 
Question was read by the stenographer as follows: 
'^ Q. How long did you remain in that room ? " 

The Witness.— I — 

Q. Just a moment. I have got you in the revision room? A. 
I did not know you had. 

Q. I want you to pay attention to what we are doing here. A. 
I want to correct — 

Q. You knew we were talking about your being in the revision 
room with Mr. Field ? A. I did not know. I did not get the lat- 
ter part of your question. 



Q. You are not paying attention? A. I will liave to plead 
guilty. 

Q. How long did you stay in there ? A. I want to correct my 
first answer. That is not all I took with me into the revision room 
with Mr. Field. That is all I took from Senator Stilwell. By 
the time Mr. Field got there I had considerahly more. 

Q. You had prepared something yourself ? A. Yes^ sir. 

Q. What had you prepared ? A. I had prepared a bill. 

Q. Have you that bill you prepared ? A. 'No, 

Q. Or is it in substance like the one I show you (handing paper 
to witness) ? A. In substance. 

Q. In what particular did it differ, if at all, from bill 1188, 
State's Exhibit 6 ? A. It differed in some of the language, in pre- 
venting — it differed in respect to lines T and 8 of this bill, and 
it differed in the respect, so far as line 9 of page 1 — 

Q. There were some verbal corrections made ? A. That is all. 

Q. In other respects it was the same ? A. It was the same. 

Q. As State's Exhibit 6, minus the insertion in lead pencil? 
A. Yes, sir, and it differed also so far as the penalty was con- 
cerned. 

Q. You say when you got through, or I will ask you again, 
how long you stayed there? A. Are you still speaking of Mr. 
Field and myself ? 

Q. Yes. A. About an hour and a half. 

Q. And you say that he had no memorandum? A. I say he 
showed me no memorandum. If he had that, he kept it a secret 
from me. 

Q. But he did make corrections in this bill ? A. Yes. 

Q. And then where did you go ? A. He left. I wrote it out 
on one of these Manila pads that they have around the capitol, in 
longhand, of course, and handed it to the stenographer whose desk 
is alongside of mine, and he typewrote, Mr. Kearney, the stenog- 
rapher, typewrote what I handed him, making five copies of it. I 
gave one of those copies to Mr. Field ; he stayed right there, it 
only took a few minutes, only one page. I gave one of those copies 
to Mr. Field and kept the other four copies. Two of them I later 
gave to Senator Stilwell. 

Q. I don't care to go over all of that. You testified to that. 
What I want to know now, is where you went after you got 
through, from there ? A. I stayed at my desk for some time. 

Q. After you got through? A. It was some time after that, 



400 

perhaps a lialf an hour, or an hour after that, as far as mj best 
recollection, as far as my memory serves me, that I met the other 
three, Mr. Field, Senator Stilwell and Mr. Kendall, met them 
accidentally in the corridor on the way to the dining-room. 

Q. Field left the revision room before you ? A. Half an hour 
before. 

Q. When you came out you say you met them and went to the 
Capitol dining-room? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say that was on the 26th of February? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is there anything that fixed that date in your mind, aside 
from the event itself, as being the date on which the four of you 
lunched together in the dining-room? A. I know that there are 
a number of incidents that fixed the date in my mind. I know 
that it was the date of the hearing. I know that was the 26th, and 
I know the following day Senator Stilwell introduced the bill, and 
that was the 27th. I also know that I had about a half an hour's 
work to do when Mr. Field and I went — I left my desk at that 
time to see one of the Senators in regard to a bill, and that is how 
I happened to get in the Senate Chamber and see Senator Stil- 
well and the rest of the people. 

Q. Was there anything that occurred in the dining-room, outside 
of the transaction, that fixes the date ? A. That fixed, — no, ex- 
cepting this, that it was at that time that Mr. Kendall made the 
statement in the dining-room that he told Senator Stilwell that he 
would pay $250 for having — 

Q. [N^ever mind that. We will get to that later. Did you cash a 
check for anybody in the dining-room ? A. On the second occasion. 

Q. Did you dine twice ? A. Yes. 

Q. When Mr. Field was present ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The second occasion was when ? A. March 19 th. 

Q. Up to this time, or when you first heard about drafting this 
bill, you had not, or had you discussed thoroughly the subject 
that it was to cover, with anybody ? A. Before I spoke to Senatoni 
Stilwell, I had never heard of such proposed legislation. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Eead the question. 

The question was read by the stenographer as follows : 

^'Q. Up to this time, or when you first heard about drafting — " 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Leave out " Up to this time." 

'' — this bill, you had not, or had you, discussed thoroughly the 
subject that it was to cover, with anybody ? " 



401 

Q. Up to the time wlieii tlie $250' was first mentioned to you? 
A. I did not so state, sir. 

Q. Up to the time when the $250 was first mentioned to you, had 
you discussed the subject that was to be covered by this bill ? A. I 
had. 

Q. With whom ? A. Senator Stilwell. 

Q. And as a result of that discussion you had prepared this 
draft that you had with Mr. Field ? A. Partly. 

Q. And what you were to receive pay for, as you understand it ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was for what you were to do with that bill ? A. What I did 
to it is correct. 

Q. How is the amount of your compensation arrived at ? A. I 
don't know how it was arrived at. Senator Stilwell simply told 
me that the parties for whom the bill was to be drawn had agreed 
to pay $250. 

Q. So as you understand it, it did not matter what labors you 
rendered, you were to get $250 for it ? A. Why, I — 

Q. JSTo, is that true? A. ^o; Senator Stilwell asked me if that 
was satisfactory to me. 

Q. I am not talking now about the conversation. I am talking 
about the price you were to receive of $250, no matter what you 
did and you were to receive that, no matter what your services 
were worth, that is true, isn't it ? A. ^o, sir. 

Q. Well, what is true? A. It is simply true that Mr. Kendall 
wanted to pay $250. That is true and that's all that is true. 

Q. How does that differ from the question I asked you ? A. 
Differs a great deal. You put a personal question to me. 

Q. This is personal. I asked you if that was the price you were 
to receive, regardless of the labor you rendered ? A. I say no, be- 
cause Mr. Kendall had never heard of me ; didn't know whether my 
services were worth $250 or anything, and Senator Stilwell did 
not know what labor would be entailed, or did he care, and he came 
to me and asked me if I would like to do it at that price. 

Q. You didn't know what labor was to be entailed ? A. I did, 
and I wouldn't do it — 

Q. You knew just what you were to do for the $250? A. 
Yes, sir, and I knew it would be worth a whole lot more than that. 

Q. It did not matter what you did, because that is all you were 
to get for it ? A. Only because Senator Stilwell asked me. 

Q. That price was fixed without consulting you? A. That's 
correct. 



402 

Q. 'Now, while jou were at lunch in the capitol, there was 
something said about the price that you were to receive? A. I 
have repeated that several times now. 

Q. ISTot to me, no. Now who first said anything about that? 
A. Mr. Kendall. 

Q. At the first time, it was mentioned there? A. The first 
time it was mentioned at any time between Mr. Kendall and 
myself. 

Q. That is the first mention of any price whatever? A. No, 
sir ; from Mr. Kendall. 

Q. Yes, at which Mr. Kendall was present. That was on the 
26th of February in the capitol restaurant? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, what did Mr. Kendall say? A. He said " I told Sen- 
ator Stilwell I would pay $250 for the drawing of this bill,'^ or 
^' to have this bill drawn.'' * 

Q. Yes ? A. I think his exact language was " to have this 
bill drawn." 

Q. Is that all ? A. That is all he said. 

Q. What did you say ? A. I said " I so understand, inasmuch 
as that is agreeable to Senator Stilwell it is agreeable to me." 

Q. You were to do the work ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were to get the pay, according to your testimony ? A. 
Yes. 

Q. What difference did it make whether it was agreeable to 
Senator Stilwell or not ? A. Because I wouldn't have done the 
work for Mr. Kendall without making arrangements myself and 
without making more satisfactory terms to myself. Senator Stil- 
well asked me originally to do it in the nature of a personal favor, 
and I did not know when he first spoke to me — I didn't know 
that there was any money connected with it, and I resented Sen- 
ator Stilwell speaking about paying me for it, and he finally said 
" It doesn't make any difference to me; I am not doing the pay- 
ing. The man was sent to me. I haven't any personal interest 
in him or his legislation. I think it is a good bill and I am will- 
ing to stand for it." 

. Q. Did you discuss with Senator Stilwell or he with you the 
amount of labor involved in preparing that bill ? A. I with him. 

Q. You with him ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I understood you to say yesterday you were entirely 
unfamiliar with Stock Exchange matters at this time ? A. Right. 

Q. Then you were not aware of the amount of labor that was 



403 

necessary to prepare this bill ? A. I was aware of tlie amount of 
labor that would be necessary, in a general way. 

Q. Did Senator Stilwell ever ask you to prepare any other bill, 
for pay? A. Senator — 

Q. Did he or did he not ? A. He himself has offered to pay me 
several times. 

Q. Will you answer my question ? A. I can answer it, yes. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Read the question. 

Question read : '^ Q. Did Senator Stilwell ever ask you to pre- 
pare any other bill, for pay ? " 

The Witness. — Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever receive pay for drawing any other bill ? A. I 
never would accept any. 

Q. Did you or did you not ? A. I did not. 

Q. Did Senator Stilwell ever tell you that a party interested in 
litigation was willing to pay you for drawing another bill ? A. ^o. 

Q. So this is the first time a transaction of this kind ever 
occurred between Senator Stilwell and yourself? A. Or any- 
body else. 

Q. The first time a price was put upon your services in regard 
to legislative work by anybody, outside of you-r salary? A. I 
wouldn't say that either. 

Q. What do you say ? I understood you to say that ? A. You 
are summing up my answer. 

Q. ^o, no, I am asking you a question. I want you to be fair ? 
A. I have been offered pay on many occasions and I have refused. 

Q. Just a moment. Read the question. 

Question read : ^^ Q. The first time a price was put upon your 
services in regard to legislative work by anybody, outside of your 
salary ? " A. 'No. 

Q. You answer this is not the first time ? A. I^o. 

Q. Call attention to another time? A. There are dozens of 
times, both this year and when I was in the Bill Drafting Depart- 
ment. 

Q. When you were offered a certain price ? A. Yes. 

Q. When you were offered a certain price for drawing a bill ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. Will you mention one? A. I can't mention any specific bill. 
I think there was one man came in from Brooklyn, both two years 
ago and last year — that is 1911 and 1912. 

Q. We are talking about this year? A. This year there was 



404 

one of tlie labor men — I don't recall his name — came in and 
wanted me to draft a bill for him; a friend of Senator Boylan's. 

Q. He offered to pay you for it ? A. He offered to pay me for 
it. 

Q. You declined ? A. I positively declined. 

Q. We will get to what I have asked you. There was no other 
occasion where Senator Stilwell or anybody else connected with 
the Legislature^ had agreed that you received compensation for 
dravv^ing a bill? A. Correct. 

Q. Aside from this ? A. Aside from this. 

Q. In this conversation nov^ at the capitol restaurant, there 
was no discussion between yourself and Kendall as to the amount 
of labor that was to be rendered by you for the $250. A. 'None 
whatever. 

Q. But you stated that if it was satisfactory to Senator Stil- 
well, it was satisfactory to you ? A. Yes, and the bill had already 
been drawn at that time. 

Q. ^ow I would like to have you make it clear to this Com- 
mittee what you meant by that remark ? A. I meant by that re- 
mark that if Senator Stilwell wanted me to do it for $250 or 250 
cents, I would do it. 

Q. Then you w^ere doing it at his suggestion ? A. No, not at his 
suggestion. At his request, 

Q. Entirely at his request that you agreed to take the money ? 
A. Exactly. He was anxious to please the Governor and I v/as 
anxious to please Senator Stilwell. 

Q. ^ow then you said there was something said about how you 
were to receive your pay? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. Kendall stated that he did not have the money and said 
he would send a check. That was between you and Mr. Kendall ? 
A. That was the conversation in substance. 

Q. In the presence of Field and Kendall and Senator Stilwell ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. Four of you were there ? A. Yes. 

Q. What reply did you. make to that ? A. I said ^' Very well." 
Senator Stilwell then said " That money goes to Mr. Lewis. He 
drew the bill and he is to be paid for it," or " He is entitled to the 
pay for it, I have nothing to do with that and it is something be- 
tween you and Mr. Lewis and I am not to be considered in the 
matter at all." 

Q. That is what Senator Stilwell said ? A. That is as near 
as I can recall it. 



405 

Q. What was there that called out that remark from Senator 
Stilwell, that he, Senator Stilwell, was not interested in it? A. 
The manner in which Mr. Kendall — the manner he nsed. 

Q. The manner ? A. Yes, his manner and his tone and the 
mysterious whispering, as if he was — 

Q. Tell us what he whispered, and who did he whisper to. I 
want to find out about this mysterious whispering, and this tone. 
A. I will tell you all about it. 

Q. Tell me all about it. A. In the first place his tone. 

Q. ^Yhat about his tone, tell us about his tone? A. "I will 
pay $250, I promised Senator Stilwell to pay $250 for the draw- 
ing of this bill," was not a very nice way to put it. 

Q. What part of that did he say, and what part do you say? 
A. He said all that, sir. 

Q. He did not say ^^ It was not a very nice way to put it." A. 
'No, sir; I said that. 

Q. Then w^hat he said was, you say he said he promised to pay 
$250 to draw the bill ? A. He said '' I told Senator Stilwell "— 
if I used the word "" promised," it is the first time I did. 

Q. Then he told Senator Stilwell? A. Yes. 

Q. That is precisely what happened, v^asn't it, precisely what 
you had been told had occurred between him and Senator Stil- 
well? A. Yes. 

Q. There w^as nothing remarkable about that, was there ? A. 
Very remarkable, I think. 

Q. '\ATiat was it ? A. If he had said, I have promised, or I 
had agreed to pay Senator Stilwell, it would have been a different 
proposition to my mind. I don't mind saying I never gave the 
matter a thought, and wondered why Senator Stilwell — 

Q. Don't v/ander away from the question. I want to know the 
difference between — • I told Senator Stilwell and I promised 
Senator Stilwell ? A. You are asking for an operation of my 
mind, and I am trying to tell you — 

Q. Pardon me. I wont undertake anything of the kind. I 
want you to answer my questions, if you will. I have asked you 
what there was in that conversation that drew out the remark 
from Senator Stilwell that he was not to receive any portion of 
that money; that he was not interested in the money, or that in 
substance. That it was entirely a transaction between you and 
Mr. Kendall ? A. I don't know. 

Q. You don't know what there was that drew it out? A. I 
knoAv I did not like the entire conversation. 



406 

Q. I have not asked you tliat. I asked you what there was in 
the remark that drew that out, what there was in the remark of 
anybody that drew it out ? A. I don't know, unless Senator Stil- 
well's mind acted the same way mine did. 

Q. You started out to say there was something in tlie whisper 
and the mysterious manner, is that true \ A. That is the way it 
appeared to me. 

Q. You have not mentioned anything mysterious in the man- 
ner ? A. I do not think it was proper for a man to lean over and 
whisper. 

Q. Did he whisper to you ? A. And then a few minutes later 
he said, ^' I suppose you prefer cash." That may have been 
proper, but I never thought of the — 

Q. One thing at a time. I am holding you, if I can, to the point 
in the conversation at which we have arrived, when Senator Stil- 
well said, '^ I have no interest in the amount, or in the transac- 
tion." Can you point out anything that drew out that remark, 
or caused that remark to be made by Senator Stilwell ? A. I can, 
yes. 

Q. If you can, I wish you would. A. I did not like the entire 
sentence. 

Q. You did not like the sentence ? A. No. 

Q. There w^as not anybody there that suggested that Senator 
Stilwell was interested, was there, until he suggested himself that 
he was not ? A. Oh, no, Mr. Kendall's tone was very suggestive. 

Q. His tone ? A. Yes. 

Q. What was there in his tone ? A. I am not a phonograph. 

Q. Will you wait until the question is asked you? I ask you 
what was in the tone, or what was said that indicated that Senator 
Stilwell was to receive any portion of that money? A. Mr. 
Carmody, it is impossible for me to be able to picture to you what 
occurred at that time to convey to your mind the impression, or 
to give you the same impression that his tone and his manner 
made upon me at that time. 

Q. What I want is your impression. It is entirely immaterial 
what mine is. What I want to know is, if I can get it from you, 
what there was that called out this remark from Senator Stilwell ? 
A. My best answer to that is that I personally did not like his 
tone and manner. That it was not the manner of an upright 
gentleman. 

Q. It was not? A. !N^o, sir. 



407 

Q. You were satisfied that you were not dealing with an up- 
right gentleman at that point ? A. I was positive at that time I 
was dealing with a perverted mind. 

Q. That is the first time you reached that conclusion ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. You continued to work for that perverted mind and re- 
ceived a fee from that perverted mind for $250? A. Yes. and 
gave value received. 

Q. ^Notwithstanding the fact that you were working for such 
compensation, it is only from a perverted mind, according to 
your own statement, that you have received any compensation 
for work rendered outside the duties of revision clerk? A. I 
never made any such statement. 

Q. That is the conclusion to be derived from what you have 
said here, isn't it? A. ^o, sir. 

Q. Can you make any other ? A. Yes, sir. I distinctly told 
you I was in the law business and still practicing law, and still 
maintaining my office. 

Q. You did not do this in your office ? A. Yes, I did it in 
my office. 

Q. I want you to go on now with that conversation. You have 
got Senator Stilwell with you — A. After that, there Was ordi- 
nary talk about matters in general, and then Mr. Kendall leaned 
over in his chair and said, " Mr. Lewis, I suppose you prefer 
cash," and I said, ^' I have no preference in the matter ; you can 
send me a check, and I will send you a receipt for it.'' 

Q. Yes. Did Senator Stilwell say anything further ? A. He 
did not, not on that particular matter. 

Q. You have stated all that Seantor Stilwell said to you? A. 
As nearly as I can remember it; if you can refresh my recollec- 
tion, all right. 

Q. I will ask you to state it again, and then I will see if I 
can refresh your recollection. A. All I can recall Senator Stil- 
well having said was, or making the statement that $250 was 
to go to me, and that he was not interested in it, and that I was 
the only one entitled to it, and to send me the check. 

Q. Did he say, speaking to Mr. Kendall, " This is a matter 
for you and Mr. Lewis to settle? A. Yes, or words to that 
effect. I don't know that he used that exact langmage. 

0. " I want no part in it ? " A. Yes, I want no part of it. 

Q. Of it ? A. Of it ; not " in it." 



408 

Q. When Mr. Kendall got to where he wanted to know whether 
YOU wanted check or cash, what was your reply ? A. He did not 
ask whether I wanted a check or cash. 

Q. I am only giving the substance of it, what was your reply 
to what he said? A. I told him I had no preference in the 
matter, that if he would send mo a check, I would send him a 
receipt, that I was engaged in a perfectly lawful business trans- 
action, and had no cause to do anything that was underhand. 

Q. What was the occasion for that statement ? A. His first 
remark and his second remark, as I told you, did not operate 
favorably upon my mind. 

Q. There was not anything else? A. 'No, sir. I am not in 
the habit of having people whisper to me, " Do you prefer cash." 

Q. You found it necessary then, to announce, then and there 
that your transaction was legitimate, open and above board? 
A. Yes. 

Q. There must have been something suggested then that 
conveyed the impression to your mind that somebody there 
thought it was not a proper transaction? A. Mr. Kendall did 
not think anything in the legislature was proper. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I ask that that be stricken out 
as not responsive to my question. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Repeat the question, please. 

The stenographer thereupon repeated the question as follows: 

^' Q. There must have been something then suggested that 
conveyed the impression to your mind that somebody there 
thought it was not a proper transaction?" A. There was noth- 
ing, except by Mr. Kendall, as I before related, to suggest any- 
thing improper in this particular matter, but Mr. Kendall, 
throughout the conversation — 

Q. No, I want just what was said. If there was anything 
said that indicated that this was not a proper transaction, I want 
what was said. A. I have given you all the conversation that 
took place on the matter of that check. 

Q. Now, that was practically all that occurred at that time on 
February 26th? A. Well, practically, yes. We were discussing 
legislation in general, and discussing this bill more particularly. 

Q. On March 10th, you wrote a letter to Mr. Field that has 
been put in evidence, a letter which says, ^' Our worst fears have 



409 

been realized. Cuvillier did introduce bill which is enclosed 
herewith." A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I understand that you had no intention of reflecting upon 
Assembhinan Cuvillier? A. Not the slightest, he is a very dear 
friend of mine. 

Q. He is a very close friend of yours? A. Very. 

Q. Have you had any recent business transactions ? A. With 
Mr. Cuvillier? 

Q. Yes. A. :N'o, sir. 

Q. ISTone whatever? A. 'None whatever. I have barely 
spoken to Mr. Cuvillier this session. 

Q. Has he been on any obligations of any kind to you? A. 
Nevev has been under any obligations to me whatever, but to the 
contrary — I would not say I have been under obligations to him, 
but he has shov^n me a number of little courtesies in New York; 
he has taken care of cases in the Harlem Court in !N^ew York for 
me, and I have drawn several bills for him. 

Q. You say he is not on an obligation of yours, or has not 
been recently? A. !N'o, sir. 

Q. On a bond of any kind ? A. i^o, sir, he has never been on 
any bond of any kind, nature or description. 

Q. On a bail bond ? A. He is a lawyer. 

Q. He has not been ? A. He is a lawyer, and could not be. 
The Attorney-Greneral of this state should know that. 

Q. Were you arrested about six months ago? A. I was not. 

Q. In the Harlem Court ? A. I was not. 

Q. And admitted in his custody? A. No, sir, I was not. 

Q. There is nothing in that transaction ? A. No, sir. 

Q. You were not charged with anything ? A. That is a differ- 
ent question. 

Q. You were charged with something? A. Yes. 

Q. What were you charged with ? 

Mr. Wilson. — That is objected to. 

The Chairman. — Sustained. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — All right. I will withdraw it. 

Q. At that time, he rendered you a service, didn't he ? 

Mr. Wilson. — That is objected to as incompetent. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I don't care for it. If you don't 
want him to give the information. 



410 

Q. You say that you did not divide that $250 with Senator 
Stilwell ? A. That is what I said. 

Q. You did get the money ? A. I positively did. 

Q. At the time it was sent to you ? A. I got the check. 

Q. And you got the money shortly after ? A. W\ithin a matter 
of about two weeks, I got the money. 

Q. Have ypu admitted that you divided that money with Sen- 
ator Stilwell ? A. I did not. 

Q'. Have you stated, in the presence of anyone, that he got part 
of it ? A. I will give you the conversation, if you wish it. 

Q. Have you or have you not ? A. My language — 

Q. Have you, or have you not, stated in the presence of anyone, 
that you gave Senator Stilwell a part of that money? A. That 
is not a fair question. 

Q. I think it is. 

The Chairman. — Answer the question. 

A. I would prefer to give the entire conversation. 

Mr. Wilson. — Just a moment. Answer the question in the 
precise form that he puts it, yes or no. 

A. Yes. 

Q. In whose presence did you make that admission? A. 
Senator Wagner, Mr. Kendall and Deputy City Clerk Prender- 
gast. 

Q. Who is Mr. Prendergast ? A. Simply Mr. Joseph Prender- 
gast, a man whom I have knovsm for a great many years. He is 
a deputy city clerk. 

Q. And a close personal friend of yours ? A. I have known 
him a great many years, and v/e have always been very friendly. 

Q. And Senator Wagner has been a close personal friend of 
yours ? A. Senator Wagner has been a very close, personal friend 
of mine for a long time. 

Q. And he used his influence to get your present position for 
you ? A. I owed my position entirely to Senator Wagner. 

Q. You live in his district in 'New York City? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Y\Tiere did this occur ? A. At Senator Wagner's office. 

Q. When ? A. To-morrow will be a week. 

Q. That would be April 5th, I think, last Saturday ? A. Yes, 
it was last Saturday. 

Q. IN'ow, go on and tell what occurred ? 



411 

Mr. Wilson. — That I object to. You have got his answer. 

Q. I will ask a question — 

Mr. Wilson. — AYait a moment. 

Attorney-General Carmodv. — I withdraw that question. 

Q. On April 5th, at Senator Wagner's office, in the City of 
Xew York, were 3'ou sent for by Senator Wagner, and did you 
appear at his office — 

Mr. Wilson. — That is objected to. 

The Chairman. — Yf ait until he finishes the question. 

Mr. AVilson. — I thought he had. 

Q. (Continuing) — and appear there in the presence of Senator 
Wagner, Mr. Prendergast and Mr. Kendall ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Just a moment. 

Senator Foley. — Are you sure you have got the right date ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It must have been two weeks 
ago. 

The Yritness. — We started Monday night. Tuesday was April 
1st. It was the Saturday preceding that. 

The Chairman. — That was two weeks ago ? 

The Witness.— Yes. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Two weeks ago to-morrow ? 

The Vritness.— Yes. That would be March 29th. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is the date I wish inserted 
in my question, March 29th. Y^ill the stenographer please repeat 
the question now ? 

The stenographer thereupon repeated the question as follows: 
^^ Q. On March 29th, at Senator Wagner's office in the city of 
Xew York, were you sent for by Senator Wagner, and did you 
appear at his office in the presence of Senator Wagner, Mr. Pren- 
dergast and Mr. Kendall ? '' 

Mr. Y^ilson. — Y^e object to any evidence of declarations by this 
witness, by Senator Y'^agner, by Joe Prendergast, or by Mr. Ken- 
dall, either of one to the other, or in each other's presence, unless 
Senator Stilwell was present. 



412 

The Chairman. — Objection sustained. But it is not sustained 
on that ground. This is for the purpose of laying a foundation ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — This is for the purpose of contra- 
dicting him. He is going to admit what he said. He has sworn 
here on the stand that Senator Stilwell did not get any portion of 
this money. Now, the credibility of this witness is an important 
question here.- I propose to show that he made a different state- 
ment at some other time for the purpose of contradicting him. 

Senator Blauvelt. — You have got to get the statement — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I have not asked for the conver- 
sation. 

The Chairman. — ^^Ve misunderstood that question. 

Objection overruled. 

Q. Were you there ? A. Yes ; Senator Wagner spoke to me on 
the 'phone and asked me to come over, and I came over just as 
fast as I could. 

Mr. Wilson. — I move to strike that out on the ground that the 
declarations of Senator Wagner to him are not competent against 
Senator Stilwell. 

The Chairman. — As far as the declarations are concerned that 
is true, but the fact that he came to the office and was there — 

Mr. Wilson. — I don't mind that. I am just raising my objec- 
tions in time. 

Q. Did you say in answer to a question that was put to you by 
Senator Wagner, in the presence of these men that I named, that 
you gave a portion of that money to Senator Stilwell ? A. Senator 
Wagner did not put the question. 

Mr. Wilson. — Wait a minute. I object to it upon the ground 
that it is incompetent and immaterial, and calls for a declaration 
of this witness to a third party in the absence of Senator Stilwell. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

The Witness. — Senator Wagner never put any such question 
to me. 

Q. He put a question to you ? A. Yes ; Senator Wagner asked 
me whether I had drawn the bill — 

Mr. Wilson. — Wait a minute. 



413 

Q. Did lie put a question to you that was tliat in substance? 
A. 'No, sir. 

Q. Did he ask if you received this check of $250 ? 

Mr. Wilson. — That I object to as incompetent, calling for a 
declaration. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

A. He did not put the question quite that way. He asked me if 
I charged Mr. Kendall a fee, and I said, yes, I charged him $250. 

Q. Did he ask you what you did with it ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he ask you whether you kept it all ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he ask you whether you gave Senator Stilwell any por- 
tion of it ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you say whether you did or not ? 

Mr. Wilson. — I object again. If we are going into these con- 
versations, then it may be necessary to go into all these conversa- 
tions. If it is the ruling and sense of the Comjnittee that conversa- 
tions had with Mr. Kendall, with Governor Sulzer, with Mr. 
Wagner, if those matters can all be inquired into, and some infer- 
ence be drawn against Senator Stilwell by reason of loose dec- 
larations or jocular declarations when he is absent, and has no op- 
portunity to reply to them, nor to defend himself, then we have 
got a long investigation ahead of us here. 

Now I insist strenuously that these conversations are not 
competent. He put to him, if I may say, he put to him the direct 
question, '^ Did you substantially admit to Senator Wagner that 
you had given to Senator Stilwell a part of this money ? " 

Now, he gave, to my surprise, when I directed him to answer 
the question directly by " Yes " or " No," and when he could 
have truthfully said '^ No," but to avoid explanations and details 
he said " Yes." Therefore you may take it as broad as you have 
a mind to, that he did say to Senator Wagner in substance, from 
which he might infer that Senator Stilwell did have a part of that 
money. 

Upon cross-examination if we deem it necessary we will explain 
just how it came about, but I don't conceive that that is an admis- 
sion against Senator Stilwell, or is it any declaration from which 
the slighest inference can be drawn against him. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — If the Committee please, this 
witness has stated upon the stand that he did not divide this 
money with Senator Stilwell. I have the right to show that he 



414 

made a different statement at other times, for the purpose of 
affecting the credibility of this witness. That is all it is offered 
for. 

Mr. Wilson. — If that is all it is offered for, we will admit that 
he did. I say it is not competent. I want a ruling on it. 

Q. I will repeat the question, did you state in answer to a 
question put to you by Senator AVagner that you gave a portion 
of that money to Senator Stilwell ? A. Senator Wagner never 
put such a question and never got any answer. 

Q. Did he put any question to you — A. Mr. Kendall — 

Q. Wait a minute. Did he put such a question to you, or a 
question to you which you ansAvered, that Senator Stilwell got 
a portion of that money? A. Senator Wagner never did. 

Q. Did you tell Senator AVagner that you gave Senator Stil- 
well a portion of that money? A. The subject never came up in 
any question that Senator Wagner put to me, no. 

Q. Did you state at that time. — A. 'No. 

Q. One moment. Did you state at that time, on the 29th of 
March, in the presence of Senator Wagner, Mr. Prendergast and 
Mr. Kendall, that you gave a portion of that money or that 
money, or any portion of a check to Senator Stilwell? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. You did ? A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. — I take it then you overrule my objection and 
hold that these conversations are competent. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I am entirely willing to have the 
conversation given. 

Mr. Wilson. — I am trying to find out what this Committee 
thinks. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — You objected to it and you now 
seem to think that we ought to have the conversation and I am 
willing to have it. 

Mr. Wilson. — I didn't hear any ruling on it, as a matter of 
fact. 

Q. I will ask you to state what you said — 

Mr. Wilson. — Let me have a ruling. 

The Chairman. — Objection sustained. 



415 

Senator Blauvelt. — You are sustained, Mr. Wilson. 

Attorney-General Carmocly. — I want to know if I cannot get 
from this witness wliat lie said, for the purpose of showing it 
contradicts what he swore to. I am entirely within the rule of 
evidence. I differ with the Committee, hut I bow to its ruling, 
but I have the right to show when a witness comes on the stand, 
and an important witness, and swears to a fact which is an im- 
portant fact, I have the right to show that at other times and 
other places and in the presence of other people he made a differ- 
ent statement. I have the right to show what that statement was. 
If he denies he made it, I have the right to put the witness on 
the stand for the purpose of contradicting him. 

The Chairman. — I think you may ask a question — you stated 
what he said. Ask the witness if he made that statement or did 
not make that statement. I think you are entitled to that. 

Senator Brown. — Do you claim you have the right to ask the 
witness to give the whole of that conversation without asking him 
whether he said so and so ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I asked him first whether he said 
so and so. This is on cross-examination. I have the right on 
cross-examination to a pretty liberal rule for the purpose of bring- 
ing out whether he has testified to the truth in regard to an im- 
portant question. 

Senator Brown. — You think that some other things that he 
stated at that time specifically would aff'ect his evidence here? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. This witness has sworn in 
the direct testimony that he did not give any portion of this money 
to Senator Stilwell. This is not a collateral matter. This is cross- 
examination on something, if proven I have the right to show 
whether he did say so. 

Senator Brown. — You have that admission ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Now I think that I have the 
right to show all he did state in that conversation. If I am 
overruled I can't do any more. 

Senator Blauvelt. — I suggest that you put the specific question 
to him. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Haven't I the right to prove — 



416 

Senator Blauvelt. — Ask liim anjtliing you want to. 

Q. Did Senator Wagner ask yon if yon received any part of 
it — the check? A. All that Senator — 

Q. Did he or did he not ask you that? A. Senator Wagner 
asked me if I made a charge, and I said ^' Yes, $250, and I got 
the money." I gave him that ansv^er immediately. I^ov7 Senator 
Wagner never asked me anything else in regard to that check or 
that money. 

Q. l^ow we are getting your answer. Did you say that you 
kept any part of it ? A. Yes. 

Q. How much did you say you kept ? A. I said I kept — at 
one stage of the conversation I said I kept at least half. 

Q. Did you say you kept at least half ? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you say you gave half to Senator Stilwell ? A. I used 
language that could be — 

Q. Did you say that ? A. In — yes, I said that. 

Q. Did somebody say there or ask you if you didn't give it all 
to Senator Stilwell ? A. Yes. 

Q. And did you say in reply to that " You might at least give 
me credit for keeping half of it ?" A. Yes. 

Q. That you said ? A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. — I^ow I move to strike out the whole conversa- 
tion as incompetent and improper, as being a conversation be- 
tween third parties in the absence of Senator Stilwell. IsTow 
once for all my understanding of the rule is this : He not being a 
party to the action, for the purpose of affecting his credibility 
they might put to him questions to indicate that he had made 
statements out of court other than those that he swears to. Having 
asked him the direct question, it was not competent to pursue that 
question further, for the rule certainly must be that no matter 
what he may say, yes or no, that he can't be contradicted on the 
question of credibility. 

The Chairman. — Objection overruled. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. 

Re-direct examination : 

By Mr. Wilson: 

Q. Mr. Lewis, you had this conversation with Mr. Kendall 
which you have detailed here on the stand, in the Senate Chamber 
and in the restaurant? A. Yes. 



417 

Q. You talked with him and noted his appearance? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Yon have detailed as well as you could, his conversations 
and his manner, is that right ? A. As well as the questions that 
have been asked me permitted, yes. 

Q. Well now, take that conversation in the Capitol restaurant 
that you have detailed, how did his conduct and language im- 
press you at that time, as rational or irrational ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — What are you talking about? 

Mr. Wilson. — I am talking about Kendall. 

The Chairman. — Read the question. 

Question read: ^^ Q. Well now, take that conversation in the 
Capitol restaurant that you have detailed, how did his conduct 
and language impress you at that time, as rational or irrational ? " 

Mr. Lyon. — That we object to. 

The Chairman. — Objection sustained. 

Q. You have also noticed his appearance upon the stand ? A. 
All I ever thought of Mr. Kendall was like a few others - - 

Q. ]Sro, you have noticed his appearance on the stand here? 
A. Yes. 

Q. Heard him testify? A. Yes. 

The Chairman. — Read that last question again. 

Question read : " Q. Well now, take that conversation in the 
Capitol restaurant that you have detailed, how did his conduct 
and language impress you at that time, as rational or irrational ?" 

Attorney-General Carmody. — There is only one way of testing 
by a lay witness whether or not a person's conduct is rational or 
irrational, it seems to me, and that is first to state that portion of 
his conversation, or those things in regard to his conduct upon 
which he intends to comment — the acts and declarations and 
incorporate it in a question, a hypothetical question or any other 
question, so we can cross-examine him in regard to it. He cannot 
conclude from all of the testimony given. That is assuming the 
functions of a jury. 

The Chairman. — That is the basis of the ruling, a conclusion 
of the witness on a statement made by counsel. 



418 

Mr. Wilson. — The Attorney-General asked him to detail that 
conversation three different times, which he detailed. He described 
his peculiarities of action and now instead of reading it over to 
him again, it being before this Committee, I asked him, taking that 
conversation as he had just detailed it, together with the conduct 
and acts of this man, how his conduct and conversation impressed 
him at the time, as rational or irrational. I assume that is the 
proper way to proceed, but I say to the Committee the only pur- 
pose of it was in view of the cross-examination to get in the record 
as an explanation of what this young man said, so that you gentle- 
men — 

The Chairman. — I think your statement of the question is 
different from the one that we overruled. Now you can have it 
under that proposition. 

Mr. Wilson. — I am perfectly satisfied with the ruling of this 
Committee. 

The Chairman. — I ruled on the other question as it was put. 
This is a different proposition. 

Mr. Wilson. — If the whole Senate which has got to pass upon 
this matter were here — but I am bearing in mind that you 
gentlemen have seen this witness and you can better than I can. 

The Chairman. — All right. 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Are you still in the employ of the Senate ? A. I am not. 
I was asked to resign and refused. 

Q. You were dismissed ? A. Yes, I was dismissed. 

Q. When. A. I was dismissed on Tuesday. I think it was 
April Tool Day, I think April 1st. 

Q. And dismissed on this account, that was the reason given? 
A. I don't know. Mr. McCabe said — ■ 

Q. I don't want the conversation. Was not first your resigna- 
tion asked for on this account, because you received moneys — 
A. Because of the newspapers — 

Q.. Just answer this question. I will ask you the straight 
question. Were you dismissed from the employ of the Senate as 
Clerk of the Senate Revision Commission, because you took this 
money? A. 'No; sir. 



419 

Q. For what were you dismissed? A. I can only give you Mr. 
McCabe's reason that he gave me. 

Q. For what were you dismissed ? A. Because the newspapers 
had made a fuss about the matter — 

Q. It was on this account? A. Mr. McCabe didn't think I 
did anything wrong and said so. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I ask that be stricken out. 

Mr. Wilson. — I submit it is competent. 

The Witness. — He is the one that did the dismissing. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — We are going to get the answer 
the right way. 

Q. You were dismissed from the service of the Senate on 
April 1st ? A. Yes. 

Q. For some reason ? A. Yes. 

Q. What was the reason ? A. Because the newspapers — 

Q. Was it because of this transaction? A. 'No, sir, because 
the newspapers were questioning the transaction and Mr. McCabe 
said — 

Q. I don't want what Mr. McCabe said? A. All right; and 
it was for that reason — 

Q. Just a moment. It was because of the newspaper dis- 
cussion of this transaction ? A. Yes. 

Q. Weren't you told on Saturday in your conversation with 
Senator Wagner to resign ? A. Yes. 

Mr. Byrne. — I object. 

The Witness. — Senator Wagner later thought it over and told 
me on Monday night that I didn't have to resign unless the news- 
papers got it. 

Q. Told you on Monday night? A. Yes^ sir. 
Q. He told you on Saturday to resign, didn't he? A. Yes. 
Q. Did he not tell you he was ashamed that a man he recom- 
mended and the man for whom he had gotten the position — 

Mr. Wilson. — I object to it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Just wait till I ask the question. 

Q. (Continuing) — had received pay, which he characterized 
as improper. Did he tell you that or that in substance ? A. He 



420 

didn't use tlie word ^^ ashamed " but lie questioned the propriety 
of mj act. 

Q. And told you to resign? A. Yes, sir. When he cooled 
down he saw it in my light. 

Mr. Wilson. — Go ahead and make your statement. 

The Chair^ian. — Senator Wagner is here and desires to ask 
a question. 

Mr. Wilson. — Let Senator Wagner take the stand then. 

The Chairman. — ^"0, Senator Wagner is a member of this 
Committee and is entitled to ask a question. 

Mr. Wilson. — I move to strike from the record a declaration 
made by Senator Wagner to this young man, as not competent 
evidence against Senator Stilwell. 

The Chairman. — This is part of a general transaction. We 
overrule the objection. 

By Mr. Wilson: 

Q. You may now state all that occurred in the conversation 
between you and Mr. McCabe concerning your dismissal. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I object to the conversation 
between him and Mr. McCabe except to show the cause of his 
dismissal. What Mr. McCabe said about this transaction is in- 
competent. 

The Chairman. — Sustained. 

Mr. Wilson. — He was in Mr. McCabe's department. He was 
appointed by him and one of his clerks. I^ow I submit it would 
be decidedly unfair to ask this man if the clerk of the Senate 
didn't dismiss him. He says yes. Then they say did he dismiss 
you on account of this. He says let me tell you what Mr. McCabe 
said to me. Is it possible that this young man is to have reflec- 
tions cast upon him that are unfair and unjust, when he has got 
a perfect explanation where he can call the clerk of the Senate 
to see why he was dismissed, whether it was because the clerk 
thought he had done something wrong, or whether it was simply 
because they thought at the time it was best to have no more 
notoriety in the newspapers ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — He has stated he was dismissed 
for this reason. 



421 

Mr. Wilson. — l^o, you have got it in liere by inference and un- 
fairly that this boy was dismissed because the clerk thought he had 
done something. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I have got in just what happened. 

Mr. Wilson. — ISlo, you haven't. 

The Witness. — You have got it in there so that I appear to 
have done something improper and you yourself know I have 
not, and it isn't fair to have me here answering questions in that 
manner. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Just a moment. Wait till you 
are asked something. 

Mr. Wilson. — He has got a right to be heard from if he is 
the one being investigated and he has got a right to explain. If 
he cannot explain here, then he has got a right to explain in the 
newspapers. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

Mr. Wilson. — He may answer. 

The Chairman. — 'No, the objection is sustained. 

The Witness. — In other words, Senator Murtaugh, I am per- 
mitted to go right on and have the insinuation appear on the 
record that I have been guilty of improper conduct, though 
nobody in the world thinks so. Yet this Committee is going to 
put the brand of improper conduct on me and not permit me an 
explanation. Mr. McCabe who dismissed me does not think my 
conduct was improper, and yet I am now put in a position — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I shall object to this, unless a 
question is put — this harangue — 

The Witness. — I ask for the privilege of making a statement 
on my own behalf. Here is a matter wherein I am personally 
being put in a false light and I do not think that is fair. That is 
my only purpose. 

The Chairman. — The ruling has been made now. 

By Mr. Wilson : 

Q. In reply to the attorney you said you received this money 
about two weeks after the check — 

The Chairman. — Will you just wait? I want to talk to the 



422 

Senator. Counselor, you lay this matter over until tlie recess. 
We will have an executive session of the Committee then. Go 
ahead with something else and we will give you a ruling after 
recess. 

Mr. Wilson. — That is satisfactory. 

Q. Mr. Lewis, in answer to the question of the Attorney- 
General, if you received all of the money, you said in suhstance 
within two weeks? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 'Now, what did you do with the check when you got it? A. 
I gave it late the same day to the clerk of the Stanwix Hotel 
where I have heen stopping this year and the greater part of 
last year, and from time to time as I wanted money I went to 
the desk and received cash from him. 

Q. ISTow, what was the first money that you received from the 
clerk ? A. The first money I received — the first two occasions 
I got $10 each time. 

.Q. And you got $20 ? A. On two separate occasions. 

Q. You put the check — will you let me take that check ? 

(Check handed to counsel.) 

Q. You gave him the check and asked him to collect money for 
you? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Or to give you credit. You gave that to him when ? A. I 
am not positive whether I gave it to him — I gave it to him late 
on the 4th, or early on the 5th. 

Q. You horrowed $10 from him, and then took $10 more ? 
A. I took $10 when I handed him the check, and $10 more the 
following morning, I helieve. 

Q. You endorsed the check ^^ Samuel Lewis," and ^^ Samuel 
Lewis, Jr." ? A. I endorsed it that way, because it was made 
out to Samuel Lewis, and I am registered at the hotel Samuel 
Lewis, Jr., and so I endorsed it that way too. 

Q. The check is payable to the order of the National Commer- 
cial Bank of Albany, New York, Stanwix Hotel Company, M. 
Holloran, President, E. L. Marion. A. E. L. Marion is the clerk 
I gave the check to. 

Q. He is the clerk of the hotel ? A. He is the clerk from whom 
I got the money. Yes, he is the clerk of the hotel. 

Mr. Wilson. — The endorsements are all in here. 

Senator Stilwell. — What is the name of that clerk. 

The Witness. — E. L. Marion. 



423 

Q. JSTow, when did you get any more money on it? A. Why, 
that will depend on — Tuesday, Wednesday, on Thursday I got 
$100. 

Q. What did you do with that $100 ? A. I gave him back $20. 
Q. You gave him back the $20 that he had advanced? A. 
That he had advanced. I don't recall whether I paid my bill or 
not. I went down to E^ew York with the balance. 

Q. Did you know at that time that he had immediately put the 
money in an envelope and put it in a safe for you ? A. No, I did 
not know that. 

Q. You did not know that until afterwards? A. I did not 
know that until I came the following week. As I was going home, 
I asked Marion whether he had any money for me, and he said 
yes, and he handed me an envelope with the balance of my cash 
and the little slips I had dra^vn during the week. 

Q. That you had taken from the clerk of the hotel? A. Yes. 
Q. How long has he been clerk of the hotel. A. Ever since I 
have been there ; this is my third year. 

Q. Do you know how much you owed there ? A. l^o. 
Q. Do you know how much he took out for what you owed? 
A. 'No, I don't know, that is, I don't know now. I knew then 
from the records. 

Q. What did you do with the $80 ? A. I took it down to New 
York with me. I paid some of my bills, and gave to my wife — 
I think I gave her $50 ; I had other money besides that. 

Q. You expended every dollar of it yourself, other than what 

you gave to Senator WagTier, the $10 A. Senator Stilwell. 

Q. Senator Stilwell. A. The Monday before that, I met 
Senator Stilwell, it was rather late in the afternoon and I wanted 
to catch the next train to Albany, and I didn't have enough 
money to pay the traveling expenses that would be entailed, so I 
asked him for $10, which he gave me, and I jumped on a car and 
came up to Albany. I had just about time to catch the train. 

Q. About how long did you have that $250? A. About two 
weeks. 

Q. The clerk of the hotel knows that as well as you ? A. Yes. 
Q. He knows how you drew it? A. Yes. 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. What was the first part that you got of this check from the 
clerk? A. $10. 

Q. That was when he deposited it? A. E"o, I got it when I 
handed Mr. Marion the check. 



424 

Q. When did you get tlie next amount, and how much? A. 
Either later that day, or early the following morning. 

Q. How much did you get ? A. $10. 

Q. And when did you get the next amount? A. The follow- 
ing day. 

Q. How much? A. $25. 

Q. And when the next amount ? A. Well, I think then. The 
next time I got $100. 

Q. When was that ? A. I think that was Thursday night. 

Q. What day of the month would that he? A. I can figure 
it up for you. 

Q. Well, how long after the check was left there did you re- 
ceive the check? A. From Tuesday to Thursday, two days. 

Q. Up to Thursday you had about $145 ? A. About $145. 

Q. When did you get the balance? A. The following Thurs- 
day. 

Q. A week from that day? A. Yes. 

Q. So practically within ten days you drew all the money, or 
less than ten days ? A. Well, I always think in weeks, because 
each stay in Albany was to me a week, so that while it was 
actually ten days, it was two different weeks. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. 

Mr. Byrne.— That is all. 

Raymond S. Williams, recalled. 

By Mr. Byrne: 

Q. I show you this slip dated March 26th. Will you explain 
to the Commission what is indicated on that slip ? 

The Chairman. — Is that an exhibit ? 

Mr. Byrne. — It is one of the slips made an exhibit yesterday. 

The Chairman. — What is the number ? 

The Witness. — Thirty. 

Q. Just state what the face shows ? A. The face shows the 
calling number was Spring 937. Calling Main 3605, Senate 
Chamber, Steplien J. Stilwell, at Albany. 

Q. The date of that is? A. March 26th. 

Q. Your position with the Telephone Company is what? 
A. District traffic chief. 

The Chairman. — What is the time on that ? 



425 

Q. The time on this is 11 :05 ? A. 11 :05 was the filing time. 

Q. 11 :05 was the filing time. You remember during the week 
in which March 26th occurred, that there was a fiood during that 
week? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And jour lines in some directions were not working prop- 
erly during that week ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You cannot state any particular line. You are speaking 
generally? A. Generally, yes, sir. 

Mr. Byrne. — That is all. 

The Chairman. — What date was that ? 

Mr. Byrne.— The 26th of March. 

Cross-examination by Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. The time on these cards shows that connections were made 
very promptly after the calls were put in, don't they? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Was your line between here and ^ew York working all 
right ? A. I believe it was. 

Q. On those dates ? A. I believe so. 

Q. There were no delays on account of storms, were there? 
A. I believe not. 

Q. The cards show that, don't they? A. Yes. 

Q. This is the call I understand, from Spring 937, which is 
the 'New York Bank Note Company, to the Senate Chamber? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the charge is $4? A. I believe so. I believe it was 
thirteen minutes, $4. 

Q. How much time was spent on that call ? A. I think that is 
the thirteen-minute call, sir. 

Mr. Byrne. — Yes. 

Q. Thirteen minutes ? A. Yes. 

Mr. Byrne. — That is all, Mr. Williams. 

Irene Sloat, called as a witness on behalf of the defendant, hav- 
ing been first duly sworn, testified as follows : 

Direct-examination by Mr. Byrne: 

Q. I show you this ticket, and ask you if indicated on that 
ticket there is any of your handwriting ? A. Yes, sir. 



426 

Q. What is indicated on there in your handwriting? A. At 
seven minutes after eleven I was busy on it. 

Q. Seven minutes after eleven, what? A. There was a report 
of busy on it. 

Q. There was a report of busy on the telephone. That call 
went to what number? A. Main 3605. 

Q. Main 3605, and at what time was the conversation started? 
A. 11:17.' 

Q. 11:17. Do you know what your custom is in calling say 
3605 in this particular case, for as on this ticket is indicated 
Senator Stilwell. Just explain your custom? A. Why, I just 
call for the number and ask for Senator Stilwell. 

Q. That is all? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The call was put in at what time ? A. 11 :05. 

Q. At 11:05, and it was not until 11:17 that the call started, 
or the talk started ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that correct ? A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Byrne. — That is enough. 

Cross-examination by Attorney-General Carmody : 

Q. When did it terminate ? A. They talked thirteen minutes. 

Q. Thirteen minutes after that would be 11 :30 ? A. Yes, sir, 
11:30. 

Q. That is, from the time that the connection was desired by 
the l^ew York end, it was not communicated with the Albany end, 
until between 11 :05 and 11 :17 ? A. Why no, they didn't start to 
talk until 11 :17. 

Q. That is it. They didn't start to talk until 11 :17. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. 

Senator Griffin. — Fix the date of that telephone conversation, 
please. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — March 26th. 

Senator Griffin. — On March 26th, at 11:17 a. m., it started? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes. 

Q. You charged off thirteen minutes? A. Yes, sir. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That is all. 

Ella Doyle, recalled. 



427 

By Mr. Byrne: 

Q. Miss Doyle, have yoii at the present time any recollection 
of that particular ticket (handing same to witness) ? A. We 
don't handle the tickets. 

Q. Yon don't handle the tickets ? A. E"o'. 

Q. What was yonr custom in receiving a call, say for Senator 
Stilwell, if Senator Stilwell was not at the Senate Chamber? 
A. Why, we refer the ^ew York operator to his direct office, 
Main 1513. 

Q. Would it take a considerable length of time, under certain 
conditions, to secure 1513 from the time the call came in to you? 
A. I don't know. 

Q. You don't know the length of time, but you refer them 
to 1513 ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You haven't in mind any particular knowledge of this 
particular call ? A. I don't remember it. 

Q. Can you refresh your memory in anywise by seeing or 
having ever called Senator Stilwell to the telephone booth, and 
seeing him talk for that length of time? A. I don't remember, 
no. 

Q. Would you remember it, if it was for thirteen minutes ? 
A. I think I would. 

Q. But you don't, do you ? A. 'No, sir. 

Mr. Byrne. — That is all. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — No questions. 

The Chairman. — The Committee will take a recess of ten 
minutes, and I wish to say to the members of the Committee 
that the Committee will adjourn to the next room for just a few 
minutes, in executive session. 

Whereupon a recess was taken. 



AFTER RECESS. 

The Chairman. — The hearing is adjourned until 1 :30 p. m. 



428 



ArTEK]^oo:Kr sessiok 

The Chairman. — The Committee requests that there will he 
no smoking in the room during this proceeding. We are now 
ready to proceed. 

Mr. Byrne. — We will call Mr. Marion. 

Edmund L. Marion^ called as a witness, heing duly sworn, 
testified as follows: 

Direct examination hy Mr. Byrne : 

Q. Mr. Marion, where do you reside ? A. Alhany. 

Q. At what place in Alhany? A. 112 South Pearl. 

Q. What is your occupation ? A. Hotel clerk. 

Q. Where ? A. At the Stanwix Hall. 

Q. And you have heen for how long ? A. I have heen in and 
out of there for twenty-three years; the last time I have heen 
there ahout six years. 

Q. I show you this check and ask you whether you identify it or 
not ? A. One I cashed. 

The 'Chairman. — What exhibit is that ? 

Mr. Byrne.— This is State's Exhibit 'No. 10. 

Q. Is your signature on that check? A. Yes, sir; at the 
bottom. 

Q. Can you tell when it was that you cashed that check? A. 
There is no date of deposit on here, but probably — 

Q. You don't remember when it was ? A. It v/as the first 
part of March. 

Q. The first part of March? A. Yes^ sir. 

Q. Do you know Samuel Lewis, Jr. ? A. I do. 

Q. Did you receive this check from Samuel Lewis, Jr. ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Will you go on and state everything you did regarding 
this check and the payment of money thereon. Speak loudly 
enough so that the Senators at this end of the table can hear 
you? A. Mr. Lewis gave me that check in the evening and 
asked me to get the money on it and let him have the money as 
he called for it, which I did. 



429 

Q. What did you do ? A. I kept the money in the drawer for 
the check and advanced it to Mr. Lewis as he asked for it. 

Q. Can you state to the best of your recollection about Avhat 
amounts you did pay him? A. I know the first week, the week 
that he gave m© the check — he goes away every week, — that 
week when he went away he cleaned up to the extent of $100 
on the check and left $150 standing for the following week, and 
he drew on that $150 the second week, and when he took his de- 
parture that week he cleaned up all the $150. 

Q. Can A^ou toll us approximately in what amounts to the best 
of your recollection he drew on this money ? A. I don't know 
whether he ever drew more than $10 at a time, or not, possibly 
$20. He drew it in small amounts. 

Q. Has it been your custom at the hotel to occasionally or fre- 
quently do this in connection with Mr. Lev/is and others ? A. 
Very often. 

Q. It is one of the customs of the hotel ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Your custom is what; explain it to the Senators. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — There is no question about that ; 
you all know what the custom is I guess. 

Mr. Byrne. — Do you care for that. Senators ? 

The Chairman. — I do not care for that. 

Q. And you say that the period of demanding moneys upon 
this check extended over a period to the best of your recollection 
of about two weeks or ten days ? A. About ten days. 

Q. From the time you got it ? A. Yes. 

Cross-examination by Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Can you tell us, Mr. Marion, the amounts that were drawn 
the first week? I will put it this v/ay, to refresh jouv recollec- 
tion. Was there an amount as large as $100 drawn ? A. ISTot the 
first week, no, sir. 

Q. Was there any week ? A. ^"0, sir. 

Q. Was there at any one time? A. ISlo, sir. 

Q. At no time was there $100 ? A. 'No, sir. 

Q. Was there more than that ? A. There was never $100 paid 
at one time. 

Q. Was there more than $100 paid at one time ? A. ^0, sir. 

Q. You didn't hear Mr. Lewis sworn this morning? A. The 
first time I have been here. 



430 

Q. So he did not get tlie first week $100 at one time, and $25 
at another, according to your recollection? A. He did not, no, 
sir. 

Q. 'Noi' $145 the first week, or np to the Thursday of the first 
week? A. 'No, sir. 

Senator Blauvelt. — Attorney-General, I would like to know if 
this witness, or the hotel, kept any record of this check, as to 
payments — cashing it, and if so, what ? 

Q. Did you keep any record? A. J^othing, only the record 
that was turned over to Mr. Lewis, at the time he cleaned it up. 

Q. What was that, a memoranda on a sheet of paper? A. 
Memoranda on the envelope we put the money in. 

Q. That is a statement of the amount ? A. Yes. 

Senator Blauvelt. — And what I wanted to know was when 
the check was left with this witness to be cashed, did he cash the 
check, so far as the bank was concerned, and put the $250 in the 
envelope ? 

The Witness. — I did not do that in the second week. 

Senator Blauvelt. — I would like to have the whole history of 
the transaction. 

The Witness. — I deposited this check to the credit of the 
hotel, and then the first week I advanced Mr. Lewis money as he 
required it, as he asked for it; then at the close of the week, I 
put $150 for him ready for the next week in an envelope. 

Q. That is after you had collected the check? A. I took 
credit for the check in my drawer, you understand, when I de- 
posited it in the bank. 

Q. You didn't wait until it was collected through the bank? 
A. No. 

Q. You say you did or did not? A. I did not. 

Q. You simply paid him what he wanted, and put the check in 
the bank, and took credit for the $250 ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And then you put — at a certain time you put what was 
left in an envelope? A. In an envelope. 

Q. When was that ? A. When I thought he might ask for it 
when he came back Monday, but he did not. 

Q. When was that? A. That was the second week. I did 
that on Monday. 

Q. On Monday you put $150 — A. Yes, sir. 



431 

Q. (Continuing) In the envelope? A. In the envelope. 

Q. And had a memorandum on the outside of the envelope of 
the amount he had drawn? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He had drawn at that time $100 ? A. $100. 

Q. How many different payments ? A. I don't remember 
just how many. He paid his hill out of it, besides what he had 
drawn. That left $150 to his credit, when he went away. 

Q. Was this the only transaction of this kind you had with Mr. 
Lewis, cashing checks ? A. 'No, I don't think it is. I don't re- 
member. I don't recall. 

Q. Don't recall any other? A. No, I don't recall any other. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Have you, Mr. Lewis, the en- 
velope that was delivered to you? 

Mr. Lewis. — I have not. I tore it up right then and there. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Lyon : 

Q. Mr. Marion, you have known, I presume, for some days that 
this matter of the cashing of that check would be inquired into 
here, have you not ? A. I supposed it would, yes, sir. 

Q. Who told you ? A. Mr. Lewis. 

Q. Do you know when he told you that first? A. I should 
judge about ten days ago. 

Q. And you went over the matter with him then, I presume? 
A. Why, we discussed it, yes. 

Q. And gave your views backward and forth, as to what took 
place, so as to refresh your recollection ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many times have you done that with Mr. Lewis ? A. 
That was the only time. 

Q. How recently have you talked with him about it ? A. That 
is the last — the only time I talked with him about the check. 

By Mr. Byrne: 

Q. This $150 you state was left there, and was taken out in 
small drafts until it was all taken? A. In portions, yes, sir. 

Mr. Byrne. — That is all, Mr. Marion. Mr. Stilwell, take the 
stand. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I do not think it is necessary to 
have the girls stay any longer. 



432 

The Chairman. — ^o, unless counsel for the other side wishes 
it. Are they telephone girls? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes, and Miss Allen. They are 
very anxious to get away. 

The Chairman. — Who are the ones that you want now ? 

Mr. Byrne. — Why — 

The Chairman. — Which ones do you want to let go ? 

Mr. Byrne. — I think all of them. Just a moment. I will con- 
sult with Senator Stilwell. Miss Allen may go also. Is it the 
desire of any of the Senators to have Miss Allen remain ? 

The Chairman. — She may be dismissed as well as the other 
young ladies. 

Stephen J. Stilwell was called as a witness in his own behalf, 
and being duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Direct examination by Mr. Byrne : 

Q. Senator, where do you reside ? A. In the Bronx, 'New York 
city. 

Q. What is your age ? A. 47. 

Q. You are a practising attorney before the courts of this State ? 
A. I am. 

Q. And you are a member of the State Senate of this State? 
A. I am. 

Q. And you have been such how long? A. This is my third 
term; serving 5 years now. 

Q. Senator, having heard the testimony in this investigation, 
I now ask you within the limits of your recollection everything 
that you know regarding this matter in as fresh detail as you pos- 
sibly can give us ? A. Well, the first that I met Mr. Kendall was 
an evening, about half -past six in the evening. I think it was 
February 13. I won't be certain. It was on a Thursday evening, 
as I was leaving for New York. I was going to take the 7 o'clock 
train. I was in the Codes Committee room, which is my com- 
mittee room, of the Senate, and two gentlemen came in. 

I was just about putting my hat and coat on, if I recollect cor- 
rectly, and one of the gentlemen asked me if Senator Stilwell was 
in. I said yes, I am Senator Stilwell. 

He said, I am Mr. Kendall, president of the !N'ew York Bank 



433 

'Note Company. This is my cousin, tlie vice-president. I think 
that is the way he introduced him. He said I have been in to 
see the Governor, or we have, and the Governor has referred ns 
to yon on some matters. 

I said, Mr. Kendall, I am just about leaving for ^ew York. I 
haven't much time to talk on these things but I will give you ten 
minutes, because I have to get that train. If you are very brief 
about it I will see what we can do. 

Then he started off to explain about the Bank E'ote Company 
being discriminated against. 

Q. Senator, will you kindly give us to the best of your recol- 
lection about what he said and what you said ? A. He said that 
the New York Bank !Kote Company w^as being discriminated 
against by the ^N'ew York Stock Exchange and he came up to see 
Governor Sulzer if he could not get a law passed which would 
prevent that and give him a chance to have his stocks listed. 

Well, I said, this is a very important matter and I could not 
go over this thing in ten minutes with you. That would be im- 
possible and I must catch this train for I^ew York, but I will tell 
you what I will do. If you will come up next Wednesday I will 
ask my Committee, the Senate Codes Committee, to give you a 
hearing and then and there you can explain the whole thing to 
them and let the Committee take the whole matter up and see 
what can be done, inasmuch as the Governor has asked that and 
referred it to the Committee. 

He said. That is fine. I am glad you will do that. Very 
glad. Then we parted and that is the last I saw of him that day 
because I took the 7 o'clock train. I remember it particularly 
because we were delayed by an accident at Oscawanna and got in 
at half past 3 in the morning. 

Q. ^Tien was the next time you saw him? A. The next time 
was on the following Wednesday, which I think was the 19th. 
Mr. Kendall came up. I think it was about noon time. I remem- 
ber seeing him standins; in the Senate. I am ^ivins: it as near as 
I recollect. I walked over and shook hands with him. I do not 
think there was any conversation that day between us until later 
in the day. 

I think the next time I saw him was down before the Codes 
Committee. We had a hearing there of the Moving Picture bills. 
The ministers from all over the State and the Moving Picture peo- 



434 

pie from all over the United States was there. It was on the ques- 
tion of Sunday vaudeville shows. We had quite a crowd of peo- 
ple there, quite an exciting time and it lasted probably a couple 
of hours or more. I sat there at that hearing, presided, and Mr. 
Kendall was there, either in or out of the room, but he was there 
and he was to have a hearing after they were finished. 

While our session was on I had to go down to the hall, down 
to the toilet, and I left, and I think one of the members, I asked 
him to preside while I was out. 

I went down and on my way back Mr. Kendall was there in 
the hallway, and he wanted to stop me and ask me when I thought 
he could get on for a hearing. 

I said, I cannot tell you, it is impossible with these people to 
get the time when they get talking. 

He said, Why can't I take this matter up out here with you, 
but I said no. I want you to go inside and you want to be heard 
by the whole Committee and I would rather have it that way. 

Very well, he said. I went back in. Mr. Field was out there 
that time and probably 10 or 15 other people out in the hallway, 
crowded around the room. 

Q. You then returned to the room ? A. I did. 

Q. What happened after that? A. We proceeded with the 
hearing and after that hearing was over Mr. Kendall was per- 
mitted to address the committee and I think he addressed them 
for probably a half or three-quarters of an hour, explaining his 
position and his difficulties with the 'New York Stock Exchange. 
After the hearing was over, one of the members of the Codes Com- 
mittee suggested that the matter be taken up by the Chairman 
of the Committee with Mr. Kendall. 

Q. Do you remember who that member was ? A. I cannot just 
recall whether it was Senator Thompson or Senator Carswell, or 
someone, and it was the consensus of opinion that I take it up. 
I said, '^ Very well, gentlemen, I will take it up with Mr. Ken- 
dall." After the hearings were all over, and everybody had gone 
except Mr. Kendall and Mr. Field, I think that we sat down and 
talked the matter over. 

Q. Yes. A. And I had made some memorandum while he was 
talking as to what his ideas were, and what he wanted to accom- 
plish by this particular bill, and then I had memorandums as to 
what I thought the bill ought to do according to what he had 
explained he wanted it to do; and we sat there and talked for a 



435 

little wliile^ and finally lie says, ^' Senator, why can't yon draw 
this bill ? " I says, '' Mr. Kendall, I cannot do it, it is impos- 
sible; I haven't the time to do it, and as a legislator I am not 
paid for that kind of work. Yon get yonr bill drawn. You 
know the circumstances, have your lawyer draw the bill." Well, 
he says, ^' I have no lawyer to draw the bill," and I says, " You 
must have a lawyer, because you have been in litigation for over 
thirty years, you must have lawyers who understand it." He 
says, " They do not understand legislative drafting of bills." He 
says, "Are you a lawyer," and T says, " Yes." He says, " Can't 
you take it as a lawyer and draw it, and I will pay you for it." 
I says, " isTo, while there is no legal reason, there is a moral reason, 
and I won't have anything to do with it." He says, " Have you a 
partner," and I said, " Yes," and he said, " Can't you draw it, 
and have your partner charge for it," and I said, " 'No, I won't 
do anything of the kind. I will tell you what you ought to do. 
The Governor has sent you to me. You go back to the Governor 
and ask the Governor for a letter to the bill drafting department. 
There is where we have got the best lawyers for drafting bills," 
and he says, '' That is one thing I do not want to do," he says, 
'' I am afraid the thieves of the Stock Exchange will put a joker 
in it, and I don't want anything to do with it, and I wish you 
would have somebody do it." I says, " Mr. Kendall, here is the 
situation. There is a young man here who has been drafting bills 
for me, and who has looked after and done a lot of things for me, 
who has been in the bill drafting department for quite some time, 
and who is now a revision clerk, and who I think has good ideas 
of how bills should be drafted. Now, if you want to pay for the 
drafting of the bill, and you want to hire a lawyer, as you say, 
you want to pay me, and you want that done," and he says, "All 
right," and I says, " What do you want to pay for it ? " He 
says, " I will pay $250." I says, " Do you w^ant me to see this 
man and see whether or not he will do it for jou ?" He says, " If 
you recommend him, he is satisfactory to me," and I said, " I 
will see the man and see whether or not he will do it for you;" 
and that was all the conversation we had that afternoon, as I 
recollect it. 

Q. When did you next see him ? A. I next saw Mr. Kendall I 
think it was the following Wednesday, the 26th. He had written 
to me, and asked if he could not be put on as a speaker before the 
joint committee hearing on the Wall street bills. 



436 

Q. That letter lias been introduced in evidence. A. Tkat 
letter has been introduced in evidence, and prior to that I never 
spoke to bim to come up and appear for the incorporation bill. 

Q. Did you receive this letter from him? A. When I re- 
ceived that letter from him, when he asked me whether or not 
he could appear as a speaker, and whether I would have his name 
put on the list and whether I was the proper one to address it to, 
was the first time I ever knew he wanted to speak. 

Q. Go on from that point? A. On the following Wednesday 
he came up, and as I recollect it, I met him in the Senate 
Chamber, and he wanted me to take luncheon with him, and I 
said, I think, ^^ We Senators don't eat," or something of that kind. 
^' I have got to go in the Judiciary Committee." There was 
a meeting called of the Judiciary Committee immediately after 
adjournment. I talked for a few moments, on some matter, and 
I excused myself and went into the Judiciary Committee, after 
the meeting. When T came out he was there waiting for me. I 
think prior to that, though, Lewis came into it, because I re- 
member speaking to Kendall and introducing Mr. Lewis to him, 
and saying to Mr. Kendall, ^' This is the man I spoke to you 
about, and whom you asked me to get to draw this bill for you. 
This is Mr. Lewis, and you had better take the matter up Vv^ith 
him." 

Q. This was in the Senate Chamber ? A. I think it was in 
the Senate Chamber, and I think I went back to my seat. This 
was prior to the meeting of the Judiciary Committee, and then 
I dismissed the thing from my mind, and went back into the 
Judiciary Committee after the session was over; when I came 
out, I think Mr. Kendall and Mr. Field were together waiting 
for me, just outside the Judiciary room, I think, or there in the 
hallway, or somewheres, and Mr. Kendall again asked me if I 
would take luncheon with him. I said, ^' Very well, I would be 
pleased to," and we walked out intO' the luncheon room, and I 
think that we met Mr. Lewis or he was in there, I know he was 
at the table, and had luncheon with us, and I know we talked 
about this particular bill, and I heard Mr. Kendall say that he 
was satisfied with that bill. I know that was the subject of 
discussion there; that was what he v/as talking about, and I 
heard him remark about the payment of the bill, and I spoke to 
Mr. Lewis, and I heard Mr. Kendall turn to Mr. Lewis and say 
to him, '' Do vou want this in cash ? " and Mr. Lewis said " No, 



437 

I am not particular about it, you can send me a check, and I 
will send you a receipt for it; tliis is perfectly legitimate busi- 
ness/' and then I said to him, '' Yes, and I want you to under- 
stand that I am not interested in it one way or the other, and 
not one dollar of this money comes to me," and the reason I 
made the remark was because of his accent. I did not want him 
to think, and did not want it thought I would get a dollar of 
this money. 

Q. Did you continue at the table for some time? A. We did 
until the luncheon was over. 

Q. Then what transpired ? A. I was Chairman of the Joint 
Cctmmittee that afternoon, and I went back and Mr. Kendall re- 
mained around there until about 12 o'clock at night, when he 
spoke on one of the bills. I do not think we had any further 
conversation that day about it. 

Q. What, if anything, occurred su.bsequent to that? A. I 
think the next time — that was the 26th of February, I think 
the next time that I saw Mr. Kendall was the 19th of March, 
when we had a hearing on his bill before the Senate Codes Com- 
mittee. He always came up about the same time and got in the 
Senate about noon time. 

Q. ^ow, to the best of your recollection, relate what occurred 
on that occasion? A. We had luncheon again at that time. 

Q. By the way, one moment, I v/ould ask you did you, on the 
27th of February, 1913, introduce in the Senate that bill (show- 
ing bill) ? A. I did. 

Q. Is that your signature upon that bill? A. That is my en- 
dorsement and my signature. 

Q. And this stamp? A. I don't know; that was on there; I 
presume that was put there by the clerk. I know nothing about 
it. 

Q. ^N'ow, w^e have the 19th of March. Will you describe 
what took place and tell what was said? A. The 19th of March 
Mr. Kendall and Mr. Field and I went into the lunch room, and 
there at the table sat Mr. Lewis, and we all three sat down at the 
table Mr. Lewis was at, and the talk was on Mr. Kendall's bill; 
Mr. Kendall pulled out a copy of a bill which he had, and showed 
it to us with the v/ritten interlineation into it, with the words 
to this effect : '' Recoverable in a civil action by party aggrieved," 
if I recollect correctly. 



438 

Q. I sliow you this copy of bill (handing to witness) ? A. 
YeS; sir. 

Q. Is that the copy ? A. That is the copy and that is the one 
he had. 

Q. Now, w^hat does that interlineation state? A. ^' To be re- 
covered in a civil action by any party aggrieved." 

Q. Go on from that point ? A. Well, the discussion was then 
mostly between Mr. Lewis and Mr. Kendall as to the advisability 
of amending that bill. 

Q. Do you remember anything in particular that was said by 
Mr. Kendall regarding the situation with the Stock Exchange? 
A. Yes ; he said it Avould do him no good to have a criminal law, 
or other words to tha^ effect. What he wanted was a civil 
remedy, so he could get the money himself and pay for all the 
losses he had received by their action, or w^ords to that effect. 

Q. Was that the general trend of the conversation? A. Yes. 

Q. Anything' further in particular that 3^ou remember that oc- 
curred at that time? A. I don't just recollect. There was talk 
pro and con upon the bills and various matters. 

Q. Did you state to him something about the Stock Exchange ? 
Was there something said at that time relative to what would be 
the outcome of injecting a civil remedy into this bill or an amend- 
ment ? A. I think Mr. Lewis spoke to him about it, about the 
amending, it would lay the bill over and delay the passage of it, 
and late in the session it might be possible to defeat the bill, or 
something to that effect and that he doubted — 

Q. The advisability ? A. The advisability of it. They had 
some conversation about it. 

Q. Isow did anything else happen or occur on that day ? A. 
Why, the only thing that I remember out of the ordinary was the 
cashing of a check, if that is what you mean. 

Q. 1^0, no, at this particular occasion I mean what followed 
after the luncheon. What did you next do on that particular 
day? This was the day upon which they had the hearing? A. 
Down before the committee. 

Q. N^ow vdll you go on and state the next thing that occurred ? 
A. The next thing — I think we all went down in the commit- 
tee room, or I went down at least anyhow and they may have 
come a little later, or whether v/e had a session after that I would 
not say, but at any rate we met at the hearing before the Codes 
Committee that afternoon. 



439 

Q. Do you remember about wbat time that bearing started? 
A. I think there was one or two small hearings before this — I 
couldn't say. 

Q. About w^hat time? A. In the afternoon, 4 or 5 o'clock. 
Somewheres along there. 

Q. State the proceedings there as best you recollect them. 
What occurred, who was present, what was said and what was 
done? A. The committee were present, of course — a majority 
of them. When we finished the hearing on the other matters, I 
think I called up this bill, 1188, and asked if anyone wanted to 
be heard, and there was a question I think between Mr. Milburn 
and Mr. Kendall as to who should speak first. Mr. Kendall got 
up and commenced to talk about something and they had some 
talk pro and con between the two of them, and finally it was de- 
cided Mr. Kendall go on. Mr. Milburn said he would file a 
brief. The matter had been fully explained, in the brief or by 
them, so Mr. Kendall then took up the line of argument. 

Q. Were these briefs, by the way. Senator, passed around? 
A. The briefs were handed to the clerk and each member re- 
ceived one and Mr. Kendall asked for one. 

Q. I show you this copy of paper (handing to witness). What 
is that ? A. That is not the brief. 

Q. I show you this (handing to witness). A. Yes, that is the 
brief. That is the brief that was filed there, one of the copies. 

Q. This is Defendant's Exhibit 3. Now, Senator, from that 
point go on. A. Why, Mr. Kendall made an extended argument, 
I guess over an hour or so. He had books, the official records he 
claimed of the Federation — the Federal States, whatever it was 
— Southern Confederacy, way back in 1860. 

Q. He did make a lengthy argument, did he ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He spoke for about how long ? A. Oh, I guess it was over 
an hour — more than an hour. We didn't cut him short at all. 
We gave him an opportunity. 

Q. I show you Defendant's Exhibit 2 for identification and ask 
you to look at that (handing to witness) ? A. Yes. 

Q. That is a transcript of the minutes of that hearing? A. 
That is what it is as far as I know. 

Mr. Byrne. — This is Defendant's Exhibit 2. Is there any 
objection to putting that into evidence ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes, we have objection. There 
is no objection to portions of it. 



440 

Mr. Byrne. — There is no objection to sucli portions as your 
attention has been heretofore called to ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — ISTo. 

Q. 'Now, Senator, after he had finished talking, did anything 
occur ? A. Why, Mr. Milburn wanted to know if he couldn't file 
an additional brief and have a week's time, and I told him no, I 
didn't think that was hardly fair. The matter had been adjourned 
once or twice for a hearing and it was getting late in the session 
of the Legislature, and I didn't think it was fair to give another 
week for the filing of a brief. The Committee I thought under- 
stood the situation, and with this brief that was filed and with the 
statement of Mr. Kendall, we would close the matter. 

Q. Did he again refer to statements in this brief ? I show you 
this and ask — A. Who do you mean ? 

Q. Mr. Kendall. A. Mr. Kendall never spoke about that brief. 
He didn't have time to speak about it. His whole argument — 

Q. Was reference made to anything they had stated in this 
brief ? A. I don't think Mr. Kendall opened that brief that night 
at all. He had a line of argument from 1860 down to date, which 
the minutes show, wherein he was trying to prove why his com- 
pany should be — was better than the American I^ote Company 
were. 

Q. Did he state to you at that time about his having placed on 
his building certain signs? A. Yes. 

Mr. Byrne. — It was the understanding that we were to indi- 
cate what we wanted to introduce in this transcript of the minutes 
of that meeting, and we now offer in evidence all of the matters 
contained in this transcript of the minutes of that meeting, that 
refer to statements made by Mr. Kendall upon this occasion and 
statements made by Mr. Milburn. 

The Chairman. — Bead in the statements you want into the 
record. 

Mr. Byrne. — I will have to read perhaps all of the record, be- 
cause this is the transcript of the minutes and it is difficult to 
turn to any particular thing. We simply wish to make reference 
to this, because it bears out the statement made by the Senator 
as to what was said to Mr. Kendall. 

Mr. Wilson. — We want to put in all of Mr. Kendall's state- 
ment and nothing else. 



441 

Attorney-General Carmody. — There is no objection to Mr. 
Kendall's statement going in as I can see that has any bearing 
on this case. 

The Chairman. — The record of this proceeding will go on the 
desks of the Senators. We don't want a w^hole lot of exhibits 
put in that are not necessary. Put in what you want and we will 
eliminate the rest. 

Mr. Byrne. — You don't mean by that^ Senator^ that you want 
us to read at this time? 

The Chairman. — Have you got marked out there what is 
essential ? 

Mr. Byrne. — 'No, nothing there. Of .course the greater por- 
tion of this record is what was stated by Mr. Kendall. AVe 
thought the Committee might perhaps want it for the purpose of 
refreshing its mind as to what was stated at that time and as to 
mental conditions. 

.Senator Blauvelt. — It isn't the Committee, it is 51 Senators. 

Mr. Byrne. — That is true. Of course we appreciate that. We 
thought you might need this for the purpose of refreshing your 
mind as to what occurrecl on that particular occasion, which of 
course has a bearing on this investigation. 

Mr. Lyon. — That is just why we want it in the record. 

Mr. Y\"ilson. — It all goes into the record, but it isn't necessary 
to read it now. The stenographers will copy it into the record. 

The. Chairman. — Now let me understand about this. 

Mr. Lyon. — We object to that. We think that anything that 
comes in from that book into the record, should now go in the 
record so that we can hear it and see what it is about; not have 
it put in after we are all through. 

Mr. Byrne. — Won't you stipulate that this is a correct tran- 
script of what was said by Mr. Kendall upon this particular occa- 
sion, the 19th of March ?^ 

Mr. Lyon. — We are perfectly willing to stipulate if they say 
those are the stenographic notes. We don't ask them to prove 
them, but we do insist we ought to have such portions as are 
going before the Senate Committee, and especially before the 
Senate, go into the record. 



442 

Mr. Wilson. — That has all been clone. We have stipulated 
this is the record. It has all been put in evidence and we have 
agreed that we would point out to the Committee just what we 
want to put in. ;^^ow we want to go into the record all that Mr. 
Kendall said on that occasion before this Committee. 

Mr. Byrne. — Yes^ you can see the bearing of that. It con- 
nects the pictures and everything else. 

Mr. Lyon. — I don't understand now what is to be done. 

The Chairman. — The stenographer will read it and see if it 
is correct. 

(The stenographer read.) 

Mr. Lyon. — There are two things to say about that. 

The Chairman. — We will close the discussion, and you can 
say what you want. Counsel, read in the record what you want. 

Senator Griffin. — You remember that Mr. Kendall spoke for 
an hour, so it will take an hour to read into the record. 

Mr. Byrne. — Yes, it will take me a long while. 

Senator Griffin. — I think we are anxious to get along, and I 
think that these exhibits should be copied into the record by the 

stenographer. 

Senator McClelland. — We can have a stipulation on the record. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes, we can have a stipulation 
later on the record. 

The Chairman. — All right. 

Mr. Lyon. — I object to it on the ground that it is immaterial. 

Senator Griffi.n. — Let it go in imder a stipulation. 

The Chairman. — All right. 

Q. Senator, this was on the 19th of March. A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did anything else occur on that day that you now remember, 
that is pertinent to this issue ? A. I^othing particular that I 
remem^ber. 

Q. Y/hen next did you have anything to do with Mr. Kendall, 
or communicate with him? A. The following day I received a 
communication. 



443 

Q. I show yon State's Exhibit 5 (handing Exhibit 5 to wit- 
ness). A. 'No, that is not the one. The following day I re- 
ceived a communication from Mr. Kendall, either a telegram or 
a letter, I am not so sure which it was, regarding the brief. 

Mr. Byrne. — Will you kindly look through your letter-book. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Yes, we put that in evidence. 
That is in evidence, letter of March 20th. 

The Witness. — March 20th, that is correct. 

Q. I show you People's Exhibit No. 12, and ask you to read 
that? A. '' March 20th, 1913. 

Senator S. J. Stilwell, Albany, New York: 

Am informed Milburn put in brief last night. If it would be 
in order for me to have an opportunity to write an answer will 
you loan us your copy by mail for one clay? 

Geoege H. Keistdall.'' 

Q. Did you reply to that ? A. I did. 

Q. I ask you to read that letter? A. The following day I 
wrote this letter to Mr. Kendall. (Eeading) : 

'• Mr. George H. Kendall, 75 Sixth Avenue, iN'ew York City: 

After speaking to you the other day about the civil suit, I 
looked up the law bearing on the matter, and am satisfied it can 
be accomplished by adding a new section which I have added to 
the enclosed bill. 

I will be at my office, 261 Broadway, Monday next, at 3 p. m., 
if you desire to see me about brief. 

Respectfully, 

S. J. Stilwell.^^ 

Q. ^ow, I ask you, having refreshed your memory what there 
was enclosed in this letter? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was it? A. Senate Bill 1188, with interlineations 
in lead pencil regarding a civil suit for the collection of the 
penalty. 

Q. Those notations on that bill were in whose handwriting? 
A. Mine, sir. 

Q. N^ow, I want you to tell the Senators in what fashion and 
through what channels came to your notice these notations upon 
this bill ? A. Yes, sir. The following day at the hearing, which 



444 

Mr. Kendall was up at^ Marcli lOtli, the hearing before the 
Miscellaneous Committee on the 20th, a bill which referred to, 
rubber tire shoe bill, I think it was, the Oxford bill, had the very 
clause in it which I interlined in this bill, and the moment that 
was brought up before the Committee I recognized at once that 
was what Mr. Kendall wanted in his bill or asked for, and I 
thought it would be just the thing to put in that bill, and I copied 
it from the 'other bill, and put it in that bill, and sent it to him, 
and asked him, subject to his agreement to it, to say whether or 
not w^e should amend the bill, and that is the reason I sent him — • 
Q. When next did you see or hear from Mr. Kendall ? A. On 
the following Monday, the 24th. 

Senator McClelland. — The witness used the word ^^ miscel- 
laneous " without any other designation. 

The Witness. — Miscellaneous Corporations Committee of the 
Senate. 

Senator McClelland. — That is what I want. 

Q. 'Now, what was the next time that you met or saw Mr. 
Kendall, and when? A. At my office, 261 Broadway, on the 24th 
day of March, in the afternoon. 

Q. I want you to go on and state where you met him, and what 
occurred between you, and everything that was said, to the best 
of your recollection ? A. I had just come back from lunch, and 
stood at the door, and was talking to a gentleman, and Mr. Ken- 
dall came along, and we went upstairs in the elevator together. 
We went in my office together, in my private room, and sat down. 
Mr. Kendall pulled out this bill with the amendment to it, for 
the civil suit, and said he had been reading it over, and it was 
about satisfactory to him, and it was what he wanted. He wanted 
to collect the money himself from the Stock Exchange, and not 
have the criminal penalty where it would be no penalty to him, 
and asked me if I would not amend accordingly. Then he spoke 
about the Milburn brief, and called my attention to some things 
in that brief which was derogatory to his character. I have the 
brief here. 

Q. The brief used upon that occasion ? A. Yes, sir. (Produc- 
ing.) 

Q. Is this it, the one you have produced ? A. Yes. 

Mr. Byrne. — I ask to have this marked for identification. 



445 

(Paper received and marked Defendant's Exhibit 15 for identi- 
fication.) 

Q. I show yon Defendant's Exhibit 15 for identification^ and 
ask jon to find in that paper, if yon may, what was referred to 
npon that occasion? A. Mr. Kendall said he objected to the 
attack npon his character which was on page 2, and he showed 
it to me, and pointed it out to me. It was this (reading) : '' The 
proposed bill recognizes that some " — 

Mr. Lyon. — AVait a minute. 

The Witness. — I read this to Mr. Kendall at that time in 
my ofiice. 

Mr. Lyon. — Aren't we entitled to have the document and 
look at it before he reads from it ? 

The Chairman. — I think so. ' That is fair. 

Mr. Wilson. — It is in evidence. 

Mr. Byrne. — That is a copy of the one in evidence. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — There is not any document in 
evidence, except such portions as we may agree upon later, or 
which we may read in. 

Mr. Wilson. — This was put in evidence. 

Mr. Byrne. — Defendant's Exhibit 3 I hold here, with the 
stenographer's mark on it. 

Senator Brown. — In evidence or identification ? 

Mr. Byrne. — It was marked for identification and used on 
the part of the People. 

Mr. Lyon. — May I see hov/ it was marked ? 

The Chair. — Was it introduced in evidence? 

Mr. Byrne. — Defendant's Exhibit 3, and nothing said about 
identification upon it. 

The Chair. — We can tell by reading the record. 

Mr. Wilson.— It was shown to him, and we then read from 
certain portions in explanation of the brief. 

The Chair. — It may be an exhibit marked for identification. 



446 

Mr. Byrne. — It is not marked for identification, it is marked 
Exhibit. 

Senator Griffin. — I suggest that all these exhibits which are 
offered each day, should be printed in the record. 

Senator Foley. — Page 129. 

The Chairman. — It is marked for identification, not in evi- 
jdence. 

]\Ir. Byrne. — Pages 2 and 6 are the only part of it that we 
care to have. Is that correct, Senator? 

The Witness. — Yes. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — There will be no objection to 
calling attention to such part of that as he read to Mr. Kendall. 

Q. I will ask you to say what in that book was called particu- 
larly to your atteution by Mr. Kendall, or by you to his atten- 
tion? A. Page 2, portion of pages 4, 5 and 6, were the main 
things that he referred to, and wanted to explain. 

Q. ^ow, will you state what that was that was said regarding 
that paper ? A. I think I had this brief with me, or brought it 
down with me, or he brought one, but this is the brief, because I 
kept it, and underscored it at the time, and this was the section 
referred to. (Keading.) 

^' The proposed bill recognizes that some standard of engrav- 
ing ought to be maintained for listed securities, but assumes that 
it is practicable to accomplish this by examining issues of securi- 
ties after they are engraved, and accepting or rejecting them 
according to the appearance they present. This assumption is 
wholly erroneous. In seeking to maintain its standard of en- 
graving, the Exchange has to rely chiefly upon the character of 
the engraver. Unless the engraver is trustworthy and willing 
heartily to co-operate with the Exchange, the standard cannot be 
maintained. 

'^ The proposed bill would make it impossible for the Exchange 
to maintain a proper standard or any standard of engraving, or 
to insist upon precautions against the misuse of plates and the 
forgery of securities." 

Q. You are reading from what page now ? A. 'Now, page 4. 
(Beading.) 

" Prior to the organization of the JSTew York Bank 'Note Com- 
pany, Kendall was the active manager of another company of the 



. 447 

same name, organized under tiie laws of 'New Jersey. For four 
years, prior to 1892, the New Jersey Company was one of the 
companies whose work might be admitted to the stock list. The 
records of the Exchange show that during this period, Kendall 
repeatedly evaded the requirements of the Exchange regarding the 
engraving of securities, failed to furnish samples of securities for 
inspection in advance of delivery, as required by the Committee on 
stock list, neglected its requirements in respect to the color of se- 
curities, had engraving work done outside of his premises, disre- 
garded repeated promises of amendment, and instead of commend- 
ing his work to the Exchange by its excellence, presented work of 
such character as to require constant vigilance on its part. The 
Committee on Stock List was compelled to reject many issues en- 
graved by his company, and in at least one instance had to re- 
quire an entire issue to be re-engraved as a condition of admis- 
sion. From 1888 until 1892 efforts were continued to secure 
from Kendall's company loyal co-operation with the Exchange in 
its endeavor to maintain a high standard of engraving and work- 
manship. These efforts were seconded by gentlemen of high 
character and standing, who until 1892 were connected with the 
JSTew York Bank Note Company. In 1892, these gentlemen severed 
their connection with the management of the New York Bank 
Note Company. Their reasons for so doing, as stated to the Com- 
mittee on Stock List, by one of their number, in the presence of 
others, was, ' We tried very hard to keep him straight, but we 
did not succeed, so we gave him notice that we should withdraw 
from the company.' After the withdrawal of these gentlemen, 
the present New York Bank Note Company of West Virginia 
was organized. Since its organization, so far as the Exchange has 
been informed, it has been under Kendall's sole management, and 
for this reason the Exchange has never been and is not now satis- 
fied that the character of its management affords any assurance 
that securities engraved by it v/ould conform to the standard 
sought to be maintained by the Exchange. The facts that have 
been brought to the attention of the Exchange since 1892, do not 
indicate that there has been any marked improvement of the 
character of the management of the New York Bank Note Com- 
pany, or 'any marked improvement in the character of the work to 
be expected from it. This is not the place for a discussion of par- 
ticular instances of the work done by that company in recent years, 
or of the question whether in its work, proper precautions against 
forgery and misuse of plates are observed. As to the character 



448 

of the management, it is sufficient to s^ay that its president, 
George H. Kendall, has in the signs displayed by him upon the 
building of the Bank E'ote Company, in statements made to the 
public press, before the Pujo Committee in Washington, and 
before legislative committees in Albany, and in his sworn com- 
plaint in the suit brought by his company against the Exchange 
in the United States Courts, shown a reckless disregard for 
truth and a readiness to resort to libel and slander that wholly 
discredit the character of his company's management.'^ 

Q. And read it over? A. Eead it over and tried to explain 
why they were using that kind of language to him and it was not 
true. 

Mr. Byrne. — We would offer such portions of this as have 

been read. 

The Chairman. — It is in now. 

Mr. Byrne. — I simply wanted to leave this with the stenog- 
rapher. 

Q. From page 242, in the matter of public hearing, held in 
the Senate Chamber before joint committee of the Senate and 
Assembly Codes and the joint committees on eleven bills intro- 
duced in the two houses by Senator Stephen J. Stilwell and 
Assemblyman Aaron J. Levy, carrying out the recommendations 
contained in the Governor's message to the Legislature with re- 
spect to the Stock Exchange, Part II, evening session " — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — What date ? 

Mr. Byrne. — February 26, 1913. I now read from page 242. 

Mr. Wilson. — Whose statement ? 

Mr. Byrne. — Of Kendall's statements before that joint com- 
mittee: '^ Previous to my speaking in the closing opposition, 
Mr. Taylor, I believe is the gentleman's name, said that if any- 
thing scandalous and untrue statements were made by Mr. George 
H. Kendall, myself, who is supposed to be here, he asks to be 
heard in reply. Of course I shall have no objection. I shall also 
ask that if this gentleman makes any statement that I claim is 
untrue I may be heard to deny it." 

The Chairman. — The court takes judicial notice of that. We 
were all present. I^ow, Senator, will you state further if you 
can from your recollection other conversations that occurred in 



449 

your office, 261 Broadway, ISTew York city, on the afternoon of 
the 24th of March, 1913 ? A. After we disposed of the brief and 
the amendment to the bill 1188 he asked me what I thought about 
the incorporation bill of the E'ew York Stock Exchange. 

Q. Yes. A. And I told him that I did not think it would pass. 

Q. Y\^hat did you say ? A. I told him that I did not think the 
members of the Legislature were in favor of that bill from what 
I had understood, and I personally was opposed to the bill and 
did not think it would accomplish what the people thought it 
would. I told him that I understood there was a poll of the com- 
mittee and that there was only two in favor of it; that that was 
in the paper ; I did not think the bill would pass because they did 
not favor the bill and I gave him my reasons for opposing the bill ; 
he said, " That is the very thing I want is that bill ; I have been 
fighting 30 years and if I can get that incorporation bill I can 
sue these people and it will place me in the position I have been 
fighting for. I wish you would support the bill.'' But I said, 
^^ I cannot do it, I am opposed to it. I have stated publicly on all 
occasions and I have given my reasons for it. I would not vote 
for it; I am opposed to it. AVhile I introduced it for the Gov- 
ernor, I did so at his request to let people talk and have it ex- 
plained." He was very insistent that he would like to have that 
bill through, that is, he used words to that effect. That ended it. 

!N"ow, I think prior to that he had asked me in regard to the 
Assembly Committee, in regard to bill 1188; he said: "After the 
hearing before your committee the other night up there I went 
over before Assembly Committee, but I only had ^ye or ten min- 
utes to talk to them ;" and he says : " I don't think I could ex- 
plain it in that time fully," but he says, " I made a good explana- 
tion before your committee. I wish you would find out how 
many members there are of the Assembly Codes Committee, so 
that I can order the minutes from the stenographer and have them 
sent to them." He says, " If you will do that and telegraph me 
the number and then send me the names so I can have it addressed 
in a letter I would be thankful to you." I says, " I will do so, 
Mr. Kendall." Then we took up the incorporation matter; and 
then finally after that he said to me : "I have been approached 
by somebody representing the Assembly Committee," and I asked 
him did anyone come down to see him. He said they did not 
have to come down. I said " Who was it that came to see me ? " 



450 

He said " I won't tell." I says " I want to tell you one thing, 
Mr. Kendall. I don't know why you are telling this. I don't know 
the members of the Committee, but I know the Chairman of it 
and if anyone tells you the Chairman of the Assembly Codes Com- 
mittee would do anything wrong he is mistaken. There has never 
been a suspicion against the man. He is as honest as the day is 
long, and the man that tells you that is fooling you." And that 
was the only thing, the only conversation in reference to matters 
of that kind. ^N'othing was ever said about barrels of money or 
the purchasing of votes in Albany for legislation at all. The only 
reference was that he had himself made to the Assembly Com- 
mittee, and on my way to Albany, I told the Chairman of the 
Assembly Committee exactly what Mr. Kendall told me. I says 
'^ I don't know whether it was a feeler or whether it was a rumor 
or what it was, but I will give it to you just as he tells it to me," 
and the Chairman of the Assembly Codes Committee will tell 
you the same thing. 

Q. JSTow, Senator, what next occurred? A. The next thing 
that occurred, I went to Albany on the train. 

Q. Leaving I^ew York at what time? A. I ain't so sure 
whether it was 4 or 5 o'clock. I could not tell you. 

Q. But you arrived here and were at the session that night? 
A. I was. 

Q. What did you do the following day, if anything? A. The 
following day I telegraphed Mr. Kendall the number of the Codes 
Committee of the Assembly which hei asked me for the purpose 
of getting the minutes from the stenographer and sending — 

Q. I ask you to tell the Committee in what manner it was 
that you arrived at the number ? A. I took the little white book 
and counted it up and counted fifteen and had it in mind that 
it was 15, and I sat down and wrote a telegram and gave it to 
the clerk at the desk to have him stamp it and the boy took it 
out to the telegraph office and sent it oif. 

Q. And that is the telegram that has been introduced in evi- 
dence here? A. It is, sir. 

Q. That is, at least this is a copy of that telegram ? A. That 
is the wording of the telegram I sent: ^^15 is the correct num- 
ber." 

Q. 'Now, Senator, what next occurred? A. After the send- 
ing of the telegram I received a letter from the firm of Carter, 



451 

L^dyard & Milburn. I received that letter (producing letter). 
By the Chairman: 

Q. You say you sent that telegram after you received that let- 
ter ? A. 'No, siv, before I received that letter. 

Q. You sent the telegram? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say that is dated the 24th? A. Yes, sir, I received 
that, I think it was about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, or after 
that. 

By Mr. Byrne: 

Q. E'ov^, Senator, upon receiving this letter, what did you do? 
A. I went to the telephone and telephoned to Mr. Kendall. He 
had previously asked me if there was any further briefs filed to 
let him know, and when I received that letter, which is virtually 
a brief, in answer to his statements made the night before, before 
the Committee, I went to the telephone and told him what I had 
received and read some of it to him. 

Q. N'ow, Senator, I ask you to read that letter, the portions 
of it that you read to Mr. Kendall ? A. I just told him that I 
had received a letter from Mr. Milburn's law firm and in it they 
had denied his statements as to the members of the New York 
Stock Exchange holding securities or stocks in the American 
Bank ISTote Company, and I read him these lines : " In his 
statements in regard to this list Mr. Kendall has wilfully sought 
to mislead and deceive the Committee, and has shown himself to 
be without regard for truth and unworthy of belief. For this 
reason I think it unnecessary to deal with any of the other allega- 
tions made by him. I submit that the reckless disregard for 
truth shown by Mr. Kendall proves that the Exchange in refus- 
ing to put trust and confidence in a company under his manage- 
ment showed good judgment and reached a sound conclusion." 

Q. Signed by whom? A. Signed by Mr. F. Taylor for New 
York Stock Exchange, a member of the firm of Carter, Ledyard 
& Milburn, and I said, " Mr. Kendall, from a reading of that 
you had not ought to have your bill reported out of Committee." 
He says, '' I hope you don't feel that way towards it." I says, 
" I will see what I can do." 

Mr. Byrne. — I ask that this letter be marked for identification. 

Letter marked Defendant's Exhibit 16 for identification. 



452 

Mr. Byrne. — I would also tliat it be made an exhibit. 

Mr. Lyon. — We object to it as immaterial. 

The Cbairman. — Sustained. 

Mr. Byrne. — Then it will be an exhibit for that portion of it 
that was read. 

Mr. Lyon.— Yes. 

Mr. Byrne. — That portion is in, but I wish to have the original 
record with the Senate, if it is the desire of the Committee that 
this alone be allowed as the record of that which has been read. 
It is sufficient for us. 

The Chairman. — I think the best plan about all of these ex- 
hibits is to get them into the record. 

Mr. Byrne. — It is satisfactory to the Senators that this now on 
the record is sufficient? 

The Chainnan. — Yes. 

Mr. Byrne. — I thought perhaps you wanted the original ex- 
hibit. 

Q. 'Now, Senator, what next occurred? A. The next was the 
following morning I was sitting in my Codes Committee room, 
the telephone rang and Mr. Kendall — 

Senator Griffin. — Will the witness kindly fix the date? 

The Witness.— I think that was the 26th day of March. That 
was on a Wednesday. The telephone rang long distance and 
someone on the other end says, ^' Is this Senator Stilwell ? " I 
says., " Yes."' He says, '' This is Mr. Kendall." I said, " How 
do you do, Mr. Kendall ?" He says, " Senator, I have been think- 
ing over that situation of the Milburn matter ;" and he says ^'After 
fighting the New York Stock Exchange for over thirty years I 
don't want to be thrown down by anything like that if I can help 
it. I hope you won't feel that that letter or brief will prevent 
your doing anj^hing for my bill." Lie says, ^^I hope you will 
give me fair treatment " as near as I can recollect. The wire was 
in terrible shape that morning. 

Q. Tell just what happened and what you remember of that 
conversation? A. The conversation was disjointed and discon- 
nected, because every once in a while I would have to say " Speak 



453 

louder '^ or '' hello." Either the wires were crossed or there was 
a disconnection somewhere because I repeatedly said '' Speak 
louder." Then no one would be talking and I would say '^ Hello " 
" Hello," a number of times. That happened a number of times 
during this conversation. 

Q. i»[ow what do you remember to be the text of that conversa- 
tion? A. The text of the conversation was as near as I can re- 
call, he called me up and he says, '' I have been thinking over 
the Milburn situation about the brief or letter you spoke about 
last night," and he says '^ I have been fighting the Stock Exchange 
for over thirty years and I don't want to be thrown down now, 
and I hope you won't let that matter prevent getting my bill 
out. Won't you treat me fair ? " 

Q. What did you say ? A. I said, '^ Mr. Kendall, I have 
always been fair to you. I have tried to treat you fair. I have 
done everything I can for you. I know this Committee favors 
your bill," and I says, " I will bring it up before the Committee 
for further consideration when they meet." As near as I recollect, 
he asked me when they would meet. I told him after the adjourn- 
ment of the Senate that day. He wanted to know if I wouldn't 
call him up and let him know immediately as soon as action was 
taken on the matter. I says, '^ Mr. Kendall, I don't think the 
Committee will meet much before 4 o'clock, and it will probably 
be sometime before we finish the work — probably 6 o'clock and 
it might be too late to let you know today," but I says, " I can 
do this for you: I can bring your matter up one of the first 
matters and if the Committee is favorable to it and there is time 
to notify you, I will call you up." 

Q. Did he say anything about the Assembly? A. He wanted 
to know if I wouldn't do him a favor to find out how the Assembly 
Committee was. I says, '' 'No, I can't do that, Mr. Kendall. That 
is not fair to ask me." I said, '^ I would have to go over there 
and waste my time and interview 15 members of that Com- 
mittee," and I says, '' I don't know one of them — the only one 
I know is the Chairman. I don't know when they meet, but I 
would suggest to you the proper thing for you to do is to call 
up your members of Assembly who introduced that bill and let 
him look after the matter over there." Now I think that was 
about the gist of the conversation. It was disjointed at various 
times and I had to repeat and call him up because the connection 
was bad. 



454 

Q. What did you do next after that? A. I went up in the 
Senate. 

Q. Then after that? A. I think in that conversation I told 
him that if I heard anything about the Assembly, I would let him 
know or something of that kind, bu.t in the Senate about noon- 
time the Chairman of the Assembly Codes committee was pass- 
ing through and he was speaking to a Senator, and I hailed him' 
and asked him if he had heard anything further. 

Mr. Lyon. — That is hardly proper. We object to it. 

The Chairman. — Sustained. 

Q. Senator, you may eliminate that and state what, if any- 
thing, occurred after ? A. After my talk with the Chairman, I 
went to the telephone and telephoned to Mr. Kendall, and I told 
him that I had seen the Chairman and the Chairman said that 
the committee was not disposed to be favorable to the amendment 
for the civil suit; that they did favor the bill without that and 
that he had better get busy with his Assemblymen if he wanted 
to have the bill the same, and he had better call his Assemblymen 
up, that that was what I understood was the consensus of opinion 
over there. That was around probably 1 o'clock or thereabouts. 

Q. 'Now will you state what happened further on that day? 
A. Yes ; that day we had a meeting — executive meeting of the 
Codes committee. We meet every Wednesday and we went into 
session, the Codes committee and one of the first bills taken up 
was Mr. Kendall's bill 1188, and the vote was taken favorably on 
it and I think after two or three matters were disposed of — or 
while some discussion was on, on some matter where it didn't take 
my attention, I called up Mr. Kendall and told him that the com- 
mittee had voted favorably on his bill and it would be sent up to 
the Senate the next morning. 

Q. What next happened? A. Next morning he called me up 
and wanted to know whether I had reported the bill, or was going 
to report the bill to the Senate committee. I told him I had al- 
ready written him a letter, explaining the whole thing and also 
giving him a list of the members of the Assembly, and that the 
bill would be reported that morning. 

Q. I show you State's Exhibit ISTo. 8 (handing to witness) ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that the letter? A. That is the letter, sir. 

Mr. Lyon. — May I look at it just a moment ? 



465 

The Chairman. — I think we had better suspend for five min- 
utes and get some air in here. It is very had. Be hack in five 
minutes. 

(Five minutes' recess was taken.) 

The Chairman. — The investigation will proceed. 

Q. Senator, this letter of March 27th, State's Exhibit ^o. 8, 
was sent bv you on March 27th, was it? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that letter was sent after you received what did you 
say from Mr. Kendall ? A. That letter was sent before Mr. 
Kendall telephoned me in the morning. 

Q. You told him on the telephone that you had mailed him a 
letter? A. I did, sir. 

Q. E'ow, Senator, is there anything else that you did following 
that that you remember in connection with this matter? A. 
That day? 

Q. That day or any other day? A. 'No; I think at the time 
he telephoned me that morning, he asked me if the Assembly 
Committee had done anything. I told him I didn't know, but if 
I found out I would let him know. 

Q. Did you have any other communication with him later ? 
A. ^N'ot that day. The following day I ascertained that the As- 
sembly Committee had reported his bill without amendment of 
the civil remedy for the collection of the penalty. 

Q. Did you telephone him ? A. I did, and he said he had 
already received the information, I think from his Assemblyman. 
I says, " Very well, then ; you know everything." 

Q. Was that the last? A. That's the last I heard from him. 
I think that was the last communication I had. 

Mr. Byrne. — May I have the original statement left by Mr. 
Kendall with the Governor? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The telegram, do you mean ? 

Mr. Byrne. — No, the statement. 

(Statement handed to counsel.) 

Q. Senator, did you charge Mr. Kendall $250 for drawing 
Senate bill No. 1188 ? A. I did not, sir. 

Q. Did you divide the proceeds of a check sent by Mr. Kendall 
to Mr. Lewis, amounting to $250, with Mr. Lewis? A. I did 
not. 



456 

Q. Did you on March 21st in your office demand $500 eacli 
for four of the Codes Committeemen to help the bill out of com- 
mittee? A. I did not. 

Q. I am going to have you answer this question as I read it 
to you,? '' I offer you evidence that I said that would do no 
good unless Assembly committee reported it^ and that he said 
he would canvass them next day and send me a wire that I would 
understand how much it would cost. A. I did not. 

Q. Is that in any particular sense true ? A. It is not, except- 
ing where I said I would find out the number of the committee 
of the Assembly and telegraph him, so he could order his sten- 
ographic minutes. That was all that w^as said about Assembly 
committee at all. 

Q. Did you demand of him $1,500 for the purpose of securing 
the votes of any of the members of the Assembly Codes Commit- 
tee to report this bill in the Assembly out of committee ? A. I 
did not. 

Q. Did you. call Mr. Kendall up on the telephone and tell him 
there was nothing doing unless he paid $3,500 in advance? A. I 
did not. 

Q. Did he tell you that he would telegraph the whole matter to 
the Governor and every legislator unless you reported the bill 
out in twenty-four hours? A. He did not. 

Q. Did he under the same penalty demand of you that the bill 
be reported out of the Assembly committee immediately ? A. He 
did not. 

Q. Is this all, Senator, that you know about this matter, after 
reflection ? A. As far as I can recollect at the present time. There 
may be some things we talked of that I don't just remember. 

Mr. Byrne. — Your witness. 

The Chairman. — I want to ask the Senator one question. 

By the Chairman: 

Q. Did you receive from Lewis at any time any money per- 
taining to this bill 1188 ? A. I did not; not one penny. 

Senator McClelland. — Mr. Chairman, will you ask him a 
question. Does he know whether the committee, the thirteen 
members of the Codes Committee, received copies of the paper 
or brief as contemplated; does he understand it? 



457 

The Witness. — I do not know what was done. I only know 
what was asked me to do. 

The Chairman. — All right. Cross-examination. 

Mr. Lyon. — Senator, the Committee have asked to have this 
question put to you. Do you know that Lewis — 

The Chairman — That does not come from the Committee. 
That comes from one of the Senators. 

Mr. Lyon. — Oh, from one of the Senators. 

Cross-examination : 
By Mr. Lyon: 

Q. Did you know that Lewis was to receive $250 for drawing 
the bill for Mr. Kendall ? A. I knew that he was to charge that 
for it. 

Q. Well, you had better answer the question as it stands? A. 
I did, sir, answer the question. I did not know what his charges 
were going to be. 

Q. Did you know that Lewis was drawing a salary from the 
State, and that he was to devote his entire time and attention in 
Albany to his duties ? A. I have no knowledge of anything about 
Lewis so far as his salary. I do not know what he gets, or don't 
know anything about it. I knew he was doing something there 
in the revision room, presumably a revision clerk. 

Q. Did you think it proper for Lewis to charge a fee while 
he was engaged in the discharge of his duties to the State? A. 
I have no opinion on that at all, sir. 

Q. Does Lewis come from yoiir Senatorial district ? A. Don't 
live in the Bronx at all. I represent a portion of the Bronx. 

Q. Then why were you so concerned about Lewis getting $250 
for his services in this matter? A. I was not concerned at all, 
sir. 

Q. You seem to address your reply to me. I am reading these 
because I am asked to. A. What I meant was to answer it, Mr. 
Lyon. 

Mr. Lyon. — I am also asked — does this come from another 
Senator ? 



458 

The Chairman. — !N"o, that was one given to the Attorney- 
General. 

Mr. Lyon. — That is not a question from a Senator ? 

The Chairman. — ITo. 

Q. 'Now, Senator, I imderstand yon had never met Mr. Ken- 
dall until the 13th of February, 1913 ? A. I^ot to my knowledge, 
if that is the date when he came into my room, yes, sir. 

Q. The Governor's incorporation bill was then in the Senate, 
was it? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you recall when it was introduced ? A. I could not tell 
that, no. I do not remember the date. 

Q. Did you recall the fact that at one period you objected on 
the floor of the Senate or in committee, to the attempt of the 
Governor to withdraw that bill ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Without your consent ? A. No, that was not the bill, sir. 
You are mistaken. 

Q. ISTow, you say you saw Mr. Kendall on the 13th. What 
was the conversation ? A. Why, Mr. Kendall came into the room 
and asked if Senator Stilwell was in. He asked if Senator Stil- 
well was in, and I said I was Senator Stilwell. 

He says, " I am Mr. Kendall, President of the New York Bank 
Note Company, and have had — " here he introduced his cousin. 
He says, " The Governor has sent me in here to see you on some 
matters which I am interested in, or which I have spoken to him 
about." 

I says, '' Mr. Kendall, I am just about going to New York, and 
I haven't much time, but I will give you ten minutes, if that will 
do, and explain if you wish to what it is about," and he started 
in to explain, and it was getting late, and I told him " Mr. Ken- 
dall, it is impossible to go into a matter of this kind to-night. It 
is too important a matter. I will tell you what I will do. If 
you will come up next Wednesday, we are going to have a meet- 
ing of the Committee on Codes, and I will ask the Committee to 
extend you the courtesy of speaking before them and explaining 
the whole matter to them." 

And then he was satisfied. 

Q. You didn't say anything to him that day about introducing 
him to a man who could draw a bill ? A. No, nothing said about 



459 

a bill; nothing thought about a bill. He was to come up and 
speak before the Committee. 

Q. When did jou first speak to him about introducing him to 
a man who could draw a bill? A. After he spoke before the 
Committee, when the Committee suggested that I take the matter 
up with him. 

Q. On what date ? A. I think that was the following Wednes- 
day. 

Q. That would be the 19th? A. I think so. 

Q. You say you told him you could introduce him to a man 
who was in the Senate Revision Committee and had been in the 
bill drafting department ? A. I think I made a remark similar 
to that. 

Q. What did you state about that? A. I told him this man 
was competent and capable, and if he was afraid of the bill draft- 
ing department and he could pay and was willing to pay for it, 
I would ask this man. I asked this man what he was willing to 
pay, Mr. Kendall, and he said he was willing to pay $250. 

Q. You kncAv Lewis was an employee of the State of New 
York ? A. Was doing certain work, yes, and I knew he had a law 
office, and was doing law business the same as everybody does. 

Q. You knew that he was drawing pay from the State of New 
York? A. Yes, for certain work. 

Q. And you saw no impropriety in his taking a fee for draw- 
ing a bill when he was an employee of the State ? A. No, if it 
didn't interfere with his duties, not a particle. 

Q. Had he ever before drawn bills for you ? A. Yes, a number 
of times. 

Q. In which he was paid? A. No sir. He refused to take 
any pay. They were personal matters. 

Q. Had he drawn bills for people who offered to pay him be- 
fore ? A. No, I don't remember that. There were some matters 
of my own that I was particularly interested about. He had 
drawn four or five bills for me. He had done things for me at 
different times, and he wouldn't take anything for it. I asked 
him if he would take something, and he said no. 

Q. You never before that offered to pay him for drawing bills ? 
A. No, none he had done for me. 

Q. But never for drawing a bill ? A. Oh, I do not say that. 
I don't recollect whether I have. I know that he done me a lot 
of favors. 



460 

Q. And you did him a good many? I don't remember ever 
doing him a favor at all, sir. 

Q. You have been friends? A. Friendly as we are around 
here; I never knew him until I saw him here in Albany. 

Q. Then do I understand that this was an exceptional case of 
a bill being drawn and having the man who drew it and who 
was connected with the Senate of the State of ^ew York, paid 
for it ? A. I don't know whether it is or not. 

Q. Well, so far as you know, is it an isolated case? A. I 
could not state. 

Q. It was the only case you ever had anything to do with 
where that occurred ? A. That is different, so far as I know of. I 
never laiew of any other. 

Q. That is right, is it ? A. Yes. 

Q. As I recall it, the next time you saw Mr. Kendall was on 
the 26th of February? A. I think so. 

Q. And that was the time when you say you introduced him 
to Mr. Lewis ? A. I think that v/as the time. 

Q. If I recall rightly, Mr. Lewis said that before that time the 
matter of compensation had been discussed between you and him ? 
A. I think so. 

Q. Between you and Mr. Lewis ? A. I think I told Mr. Lewis 
exactly what Mr. Kendall had told me. 

Q. You had told him the amount he would be paid ? A. I told 
Mr. Lev/is that these people wanted this bill drawn. It was a very 
important bill. . There was a question of constitution alty into it, 
and it made a good, deal of work, and if he wanted to take it, 
there was $250 in it for him, and I did not want a penny of it. 
That is what I told him as a lawyer. 

Q. You told him that before you introduced him to Kendall ? 
A. Yes ; Mr. Kendall had left that night. 

Q. And you told him you did not want any of it ? A. I did. 

Q. Why did you say that to Lewis ? A. Because I did not 
want to be connected with it in an way, shape or form v/hatever, 
and I had already told Mr. Kendall when he suggested that I 
do it, or that my partner do it, and charge for it — 

Q. I am talking about your conversation with Mr. Lewis. A. 
And I am telling you what I told him. 

Q. I am asking why it was that you took occasion with Mr. 
Lewis, to deny that you wanted any part of it? A. I did not 



461 

want liim to consider that a brother lawyer would want half; in 
ordinary cases that is the- way they do it. 

Q. Did you think that he had an idea, inasmuch as you were 
both lawyers, that the fee should be divided? A. I did not 
know what his idea was, but I wanted him to distinctly under- 
stand what mine was. 

Q. Did that go through your mind ? A. I knew what my own 
mind was, and not his. I don't know anything about his mind, 
or what he was thinking about, but I know v/hat; I v/anted him 
to understand. 

Q. You are quite clear about that ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I ask you whether it went through your mind that inas- 
much as you were both lawyers, and he was to get a fee, and it 
is rather customary for lawyers to divide fees when they work 
together, that that was the reason why you said to him that you 
did not want any of it ? A. That may have been one of the rea- 
sons. 

Q. You recall that Mr. Lewis said on the stand that when 
you did introduce him to Kendall at some time, that Mr. Ken- 
dall said, I think that Mr. Lev/is was to be paid $250, and that 
Mr. Lewis said, ^^ I so imderstand." Do you recall that? A. 
There is testimony to that effect, something of that kind. 

Q. Is that correct ? A. I think there was some conversation of 
that kind ; I won't say just what lang^aage or the verbiage was that 
he used, but something of the kind was said. 

Q. Mr. Lewis says you said again, ^' I don't want a cent of 
it," if I recollect correctly ? A. I think that was at the table in 
the dining room, when Mr. Kendall whispered or turned around 
to him and wanted to know if he wanted it in cash. 

Q. What did Lewis say ? A. I^o, it was a transaction that 
was perfectly proper, and it made no difference to him whether 
it was cash or check; if he sent him a check, he would send a 
receipt for it. 

Q. You made no demur to his statement that it was per- 
fectly proper ? A. I said I have no interest in it, I am merely 
doing you a favor and you people must settle it among yourselves. 

Q. You said that to them all? A. I was right there at the 
table and said it. 

Q. When v/as it that the hearing was before the Committee 
at which Mr. Milburn filed his brief? A. Do you mean the 
Codes Committee? 



462 

Q. The Committee on tlie Stock Exchange bill — no, I will tell 
you, the brief that has been marked Exhibit 15 for identification 
here. A. Is that the Stock Securities Certificate ? 

Q. You may look at it and see? A. Yes, that was filed on 
March 19th, I think. It was the day here that Mr. Kendall was 
up before Codes Committee. 

Q. Now, in this brief filed by Mr. Milburn, the part which you 
read in is a pretty severe arraignment you think of Mr. Kendall 
and his company ? A. Mr. Kendall said so to me in his office. 

Q. I asked you what you thought ? A. It is not a very pleasant 
one, I don't think, when a man's character is attacked, so far as 
that is concerned. 

Q. If I recall rightly, you said that you at some time said to 
Kendall over the phone, that based on what Milburn had said, 
that his bill ought not to be advanced ? A. Yes, not that brief — 
it was a letter, wherein he said he made a false statement as to 
the number of directors in the ISTew York Stock Exchange holding 
stock, and directors in the American Bank !N"ote Company; Mr. 
Kendall's contention was that the majority of stockholders of the 
American Bank ISlote Company were members of the E^ew York 
Stock Exchange, and that it was a trust, and that was the reason 
why he could not get in on the Stock Exchange, because the 
American Bank JSTote was owned by the members of the ISTew 
York Stock Exchange. 

Q. You thought that Mr. Milburn's statement in that regard 
was sufficient, so that Mr. Kendall ought not to get the relief he 
was asking ? A. I did not say so at all. 

Mr. Byrne. — I wish to correct that in saying it was Mr. Taylor 
who wrote that letter, and not Mr. Milburn. 

Mr. Lyon.— Well, Mr. Taylor. 

Q. Is it the last sentence in the letter that was read ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. In his statement in regard to this list ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well nov/, in the part of Mr. Taylor's letter which you say 
you read to Mr. Kendall over the phone was this, see if I am 
right : '' In his statements in regard to this list Mr. Kendall has 
wilfully sought to mislead and deceive the Committee, and has 
shown himself to be without regard for truth and unworthy of 
belief. For this reason I think it unnecessary to deal with any 



463 

of the other allegations made by him. I submit that the reckless 
disregard for truth shown by Mr. Kendall proves that the Ex- 
change in refusing to put trust and confidence in a company 
under his management showed good judgment and reached a 
sound conclusion." That is what you read to Mr. Kendall? A. 
Yes. 

Q. And then you said to him that in view of that statement you 
thought his bill ought not to be reported out? A. E'o, sir, I 
never said so. 

Q. What did you say? A. I said according to Mr. Taylor's 
view of it, his bill had not ought to be reported out. 

Q. Did you take that view ? A. I did not say I took any view. 

Q. How soon after that did you assist in reporting his bill 
out ? A. The very next day. 

Q. You had also had before the bill was reported out the brief 
which they had filed, and which you have read the underscored 
parts of, have you not ? A. Yes. 

Q. And did you think that that was a proceeding that indicated 
that Mr. Kendall's bill ought to be brought out? A. I thought 
Mr. Kendall was being badly treated. He had my sympathy, 
and I was working hard to help him, and I did everything I 
possibly could for him. 

Q. There has been something said here about Mr. Kendall's in- 
sisting upon a civil remedy being put into his bill ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And what did you say he said about that ? A. Well, there 
were two or three conversations about that; I don't know which 
one you refer to. 

Q. Any one of them ? A. What his idea was, he wanted some- 
thing whereby he could sue himself personally, and obtain the 
money for the penalties. 

Q. And he was quite insistent on that? A. He was anxious 
for it. 

Q. Do you think that was proper ? A. If the man had been 
mistreated and he could get back money which these people had 
caused him to lose, I saw no impropriety into it. 

Q. You were willing to assist him to get a bill by which he 
could, as he told you, recover large sums of money in many 
litigations ? A. For any wrong that any party did him. 

Q. You understood that one of the prime objects he wanted 
was to get a bill which would help him to get a great many suits 



464 

against members of the Stock Exchange, is that right? A. That 
was one of the reasons. 

Q. And still you were willing to help him get it out of com- 
mittee ? A. Yes, if anyone done him a wrong, he was entitled to 
he reimbursed for any wrong, or remedied for it, at least, and 
try it out in court. 

Q. I notice in this brief, which is marked here as Exhibit 15 
for identification, but which is said to be a duplicate of a prior 
one put in evidence, that it is stated on page 11 : ^' Inasmuch, 
however, as members of the Legislature have apparently attached 
sufficient importance to these charges to introduce bills for Mr. 
Kendall's benefit, it has become necessary to explain the position 
of the Exchange." That applied directly to such legislators as 
yourself, who were assisting Mr. Kendall, didn't it? A. I pre- 
sume so. 

Q. And you knew it when they filed this brief? A. I pre- 
sume so. 

Q. And you presumed, as they were practically saying to you 
inasmuch as you had charge of the bill, that you were assisting 
him to do these things, did you not? A. The language so reads, 
I presume. 

Q. 'Now, the last time that you saw him about an interview 
with Mr. Kendall was on the 19th ? A. I don't remember what 
your question was, Mr. Lyon, but I had a conversation on the 
19th with him. 

Q. That was on the 19th of March ? A. I had a conversation 
with him on that day. 

Q. Over the phone or personally? A. ISTo, he was up here 
before the Committee I think on that day. 

Q. Before which committee. A. Before the Committee on 
Codes. 

Q. That was March 19th,? A. I think so, yes. 

Q. And when was the next ? A. I do not think there was any 
further hearing at all. 

Q. jSTow, you say that you had arranged with him that you 
would let him know how many members there were on the Codes 
Committee of the Assembly ? A. He asked me to telegraph him 
the number of members of the Codes Committee. 

Q. To telegraph him the number ? A. Yes sir. 

Q. And did he ask you also to write him ? A. Yes, the names 



465 

and the addresses, but lie said lie wanted the telegram first, because 
he would have to order the stenographer's minutes. 

Q. The telegram we are talking about is the one which reads, 
" The correct number is fifteen " ? A. Yes. 

Q. '^ Fifteen is the correct number " ? A. Yes sir. 

Q. I^ow, Mr. Stilwell, aside from some connection which one 
would make of that telegram, it does not mean anything, does it ? 
A. ^0, I might have gone further and put a whole lot in which 
was unnecessary. 

Q. 'Now, answer my question : Unless the man who received it 
had something else in mind, the telegram would not mean any- 
thing, would it? A. I do not know how any — 

Q. I ask you to answer the question, please ? A. I don't know ; 
the language speaks for itself. 

Q. Does it convey anything to you now; just those simple 
words? A. Xot unless I knew what it was. That is what I 
am asking you. It is a sort of private code, isn't it? A. No, 
it was just exactly what Mr. Kendall had asked me, to give him 
the exact number, and that was all he asked me. 

Q. Was there any reason in the world why you should not have 
telegraphed in words which said that the number of the Codes 
Committee was fifteen ? A. No more than I would use the words 
about the brief and would say the Milburn brief referred to — 

Mr. Lyon. — I move to strike that out. 

The Chairman. — Strike it out. 

Question repeated by the stenographer as follows : 

'^ Q. Was there any reason in the world why you should not 
have telegraphed in words which said that the number of the 
Codes Committee was fifteen? A. Excepting I generally tele- 
graph as few words as possible and write as few words as possible, 
which is understood by the party to whom I am sending them. 

Q. It did not take so many words to say the number of the 
Assembly Codes Committee is fifteen, would it? A. ]^o. 

Q. Why didn't you do that ? A. Because I said exactly what 
I meant to him, the same as I did in the letter. I said, in re- 
gard to the brief — I did not say the Milburn brief that you tele- 
graphed about; I knew the man knew what I was sending him. 

Q. You did not say in the letter, you did not call the brief a 
paper, or something else, you called it the brief? A. l^o, and I 
did not refer to it as a brief filed by Mr. Milburn, and referred 



466 

to him by his telegram ; lie knew what brief it meant, and what 
it referred to. That is my manner of writing and telegraphing, 
make it as brief as possible when it is understood by the other 
parties. 

Q. Are you in the habit, when you are telegraphing or tele- 
phoning to a party that you know, to put it in mysterious lan- 
guage ? A. 1^0' mysterious language about it. 

Mr. Byrne. — That is objected to as being improper cross-ex- 
amination. 

The Chairman. — That is overruled. 

Q. Was there any reason why you should not have said that 
you were referring to the number of the Codes Committee in 
that telegram? A. IS'one whatever, sir; the telegram was sent 
up to the clerk's desk, and stamped as charged against the State 
publicly. 

Q. At the time when you had the communications with Mr. 
Kendall on the 25th and 26th of March, what was the position of 
bill 'No: 1188 in the Senate? A. I could not tell you just now; 
1 have so many bills; I have seventy or eighty personal bills of 
my own. 

Q. I am referring to what is sometimes called Mr. Kendall's 
bill ? A. I laiow. It was one of my bills, and I have seventy or 
eighty of them. I could not tell you just the position, without 
looking up the record. 

Q. You know when it came out? A. I do, on the 26th or 2Tth. 

Q. You know the thing was in the mill, so to speak, to be 
brought out at that time ? A. Yes, in the Committee. 

Q. And had you met with any opposition to it particularly? 
A. Most everybody seemed to be in favor of it. 

Q. In your Committee ? A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know what the condition of the bill was in the 
Assembly Committee? A. ISTo, sir, I never v/as before the As- 
sembly Codes Committee this year, nor never spoke to one member 
of the Assembly Codes Committee about any bill. The only man 
I spoke to at all at any time was the Chairman of it, and because 
he was the Chairman of that Committee and I was the Chairman 
of my own Committee, we had various bills in conjunction to- 
gether. 



467 

Mr. Ljon. — I ask to strike tliat out as not called for by any 
question. 

The Chairman. — Iso, go ahead. 

Mr. Lyon. — I think that is all. The Attorney-General will take 
up the rest. 

Cross-examination by Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. Senator, the arrangement for compensation was all made 
without consulting Lewis at all ? A. Oh, no, not whatever, general. 

Q. The evidence shows so far, if I understand it, that you and 
Mr. Kendall had agreed upon the price that Lewis was to receive 
for his work? A. 'No. 

Q. Before saying anything to Lewis about it ? A. I^o, Avrong. 

Q. You say I am wrong ? A. Yes. I will give you the fact if 
you want it, General. 

Q. Xo, 1 am getting at the facts, but perhaps I will get at them 
quicker, if I ask questions ? A. As near as I recollect them. 

Q. The first mentioned of any price whatever for the services 
to be rendered was on the 19th day of Lrebruary ? A. I think 
so, yes. 

Q. The parties present were yourself and Kendall ? A. I think 
that is true. 

Q. No one else was there ? A. I think Mr. Field was within 
a few feet of us, and Kendall and I were talking about the matter 
personally. 

Q. And in that conversation as you have it, Mr. Kendall of- 
fered to pay $250 for drawing the bill? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you told him that you would introduce him to a man 
who would draw the bill ? A. No, sir. 

Q. What did you say? A. First off I told him when he 
wanted me to do it and wanted to pay me, I told him I would not 
do it. Then he suggested my partner, and I said no, but finally 
I told him if he wanted it dra^vn, after he refused the bill draft- 
ing department and his own lawyer, I told him that I knew a 
young lawyer, who was a capable man, who had served a term 
in the bill drafting department, and who often drew bills for me, 
and if that young man was willing to do it and take the matter 
up, I would speak to him about it and find out, and if Mr. Ken- 
dall wanted to pay him that $250 he could do so, and if Mr. Lewis 



468 

Avas satisfied and wanted to take it up, it would be all right. I 
would merely act for Mr. Kendall in the matter. 

Q. You remember that Mr. Lewis said that on the 26th day 
of February, when the three of you met in the Senate restaurant, 
that you said Mr. Lewis is the man who is to draw up the bill, or 
you said it in front of the rail in the Senate, one or the other? 
A. I said it in the Chamber. 

Q. You say you said it in the Chamber ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And Mr. Kendall said, '^ He is the man I am to pay the 
$250 to'''. " A. I would not just exactly say what the exact con- 
versation was. There were words to that effect ; any way, that is 
the substance of it. 

Q. Lewis said if that is satisfactory to Senator Stilwell it is 
satisfactory to me? A. I don't remember hi in saying that, I 
remember him saying it was satisfactory to him. 

Q. Do you remember whether that occurred or not? A. I 
think there was some such conversation, as long as Kendall had 
made that arrangement with me it was satisfactory to Lewis. 
There was something of that kind said. 

Q. Lewis did say in words, in substance, that if the price fixed 
between yourself and Kendall was satisfactory to you it was 
satisfactory to him ? A. I don't know whether these words were 
used. 

Q. But that is the substance of it ? A. Something about 
that. 

Mr. Wilson. — That is not the evidence. 

Attornej^-General Carmody. — We will get along. If he says 
it is all right and I agree that it is, thaf pretty near makes it so. 

The ¥/itness. — I don't remember the exact language that was 
used. 

Q. I know you don't. I haven't asked you for the exact lan- 
guage ? A. There was $250 spoken about and Kendall had 
asked me to get this younij; man to drav/ it and he v/as willing to 
pay for it. 

Q. Is it the fact that Lewis said if that price is satisfactory 
to Senator Stilwell it is satisfactory to me? A. I don't think 
he ever used that word at all, because I introduced him to Ken- 
dall and told him this was the man I had spoken about and wdiom 
he requested me to have draft the bill, and that I had told Levvds 
what the amount was and I think Mr. Lewis turned around and 



469 

said, Mr. Kendall, as long as you promised Senator Stilwell to 
do it everything is satisfactory to me. I am satisfied. I think 
words like that were used. 

Q. Yes, that is right. That is the question I asked you. Is 
it true that Lewis said — 

]\Ir. Wilson. — That I object to. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Just a moment. You don't ob- 
ject to my asking a question. 

Q. Lewis said if that arrangement is satisfactory to you ? A. 
'No, I don't thiid^: he ever used it that way. 

Q. Can you point out wherein that is wrong? A. I have ex- 
plained as near as I can what was said. I don't remember every- 
thing. It is impossible. 

Q. Wherein am I wrong when I say that Lewis said in that 
conversation in the Senate restaurant that if that is satisfactory 
to Senator Stilwell it is satisfactory to me. A. I don't think he 
ever — 

Mr. Wilson. — That is objected to. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Just a moment. 

Mr. Wilson. — That is objected to as improper. It is not the 
province of the witness to sort out the thing for the Attorney- 
General. 

Attornev-General Carmodv. — I will do the sorting. 

Mr. Wilson. — He has sworn what he said. It is on the record 
here. The record will show what it is. 

The Chairman. — Overruled. 

The Witness. — I don't think anything was said so far as being 
satisfactory to me was concerned. I think it was said as satis- 
factorv in regard to the arrangements that had been made, that is 
all. 

Q. The arrangements were satisfactory? A. Yes, that Ken- 
dall had asked me to get Lewis to do that for Kendall. 

Q. Xow what you have told Lewis prior to that time is that 
Kendall offered to pay $250 ? A. For drafting a bill, yes, and I 
think I handed him a memo, of what the bill was to contain, what 
the object of the bill was and what was to be accomplished by 
the bill. 



470 

Q. Just talking about the price now, Senator. You had sim- 
ply told him that $250 was offered for drawing the bill ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. ^^Tow there w^as no attempt between you and Mr. Lewis, 
either in the presence or out of his presence, to decide how much 
it was Avorth to draw the bill ? A. Why, Mr. Kendall suggested — 

Q. Is that yes or no, Senator ? A. I didn't go over it. I know 
nothing about what they did. 

Q. So you simply discussed this amount of $250 ? A. I sim- 
ply said what had been told me. 

Q. What did you say Kendall said in regard to the bill draft- 
ing department and the Stock Exchange ? A. I suggested that 
he go to the Governor. I says ^' Inasmuch as the Governor has 
sent you to me, Mr. Kendall, why don't jou go back to the 
Governor and get a personal letter to the Chief of the Bill Draft- 
ing department and have them draft the bill." I says " They 
are expert lawyers that do nothing else, make a business of it. 
If they can't do it, there isn't a lawyer in the State can do it." 
He says '^ That one thing I w^ant to avoid, because I am afraid 
there might be some connection with the thieves of the Stock 
Exchange and they might put a joker in the bill and I wouldn't 
have any confidence in it. 

Q. When did that occur? A. On the 19th — one moment. 
It was on the evening after he had explained to the Codes Com- 
mittee his position. It w^as the second time he had come up. 

Q. You knew that was not so ? A. Yes. 

Q. And there was no danger of the Bill Drafting Department 
permitting a joker to get in the bill? A. I told him so, but 
couldn't convince him. 

Q. You were to introduce the bill yourself ? A. Yes. 

Q. You would know if any sucli joker were in it? A. I 
couldn't convince Mr. Kendall. 

Q. That is the fact? A. Yes. 

Q. There Avasn't any danger, was there, as far as you were con- 
cerned that any such joker Avould get by you ? A. ^o. 

Q. Did you tell him that there wasn't any such danger ? A. I 
told him I thought the Bill Drafting Department was the proper 
place for him to go. 

Q. Did you tell him there wasn't any danger of getting a 
joker? A. I don't know whether I did or not. I AA^anted him 
to go there. 



4Y1 

Q. 'Now, I want your language? A. I conlcln't tell jou, 
General. 

Q. After lie said lie was afraid the Stock Exchange might get 
them to put a joker in the bill, did you make any reply to him 
to reassure him ? A. I might have told him " I don't think so/' 
or something of that kind. 

Q. You have not testified to anything of the kind? A. I am 
telling you I am not sure what I said, but I knew I would not 
tell him to go there and tell him what they were, unless I had 
confidence in them. 

Q. Do you think you would permit him to assail the Bill 
Drafting Department as a Department that was crooked and 
could be used by parties in litigation, without defending it ? 
Would you permit that and did you permit it ? A. I have already 
told you. 

Q. You are a lawyer and understand what a question means. 
Do you mean to say you would permit that attack to be made 
without any reply? A. I won't say what I said, excepting I 
didn't believe it was possible or something of that kind. 

Q. You realize that you did not testify to anything on the sub- 
ject in your direct testimony? A. I realize that there are a lot 
of things you omit. 

Q. I am simply asking if that isn't the fact that you did not? 
A. I wouldn't say whether I did or not. I am not positive about 
it, but I know I was positive to ask him if he wouldn't go there 
and get it done; that there was the proper place for him. 

Q. Is it not a very unusual transaction to have a member in 
the employ of the Legislature of the State, as Mr. Lewis was, to 
draw bills for pay or render services in connection with legisla- 
tion, for pay from private sources? A. I don't Imow whether 
it is or not, sir. I know that I think he has a legal right to do 
anything that does not interfere with his legislative duties. He 
has a right to try a lawsuit or anything else. 

Q. Is there any other instance in your legislative career where 
such a transaction took place ? A. I don't ever remember any 
occurrence of that kind. 

Q. You say now that you don't regard that as at all improper 
that the revision clerk, under a salary from the State, rendering 
service in connection with legislation which necessarily requires 
the confidence of the Legislator in what he does, that he has the 
right to enter in the employ of a private person in regard to the 



472 

service that lie renders ? A. I saj this. General, tliat I will 
answer your question, sir. 

Q. I want an answer to tliat question ? A. I will answer it. 

Q. Yes. A. That where it does not interfere with the duties 
for which the State pays him, and does not take up the time for 
which it is necessary to perform those duties, he has a right to 
try a lawsuit, carry on his law business or do anything which is 
legitimate, and charge a fee for it. 

Q. 'Now then, the services that he is to render the State in 
regard to legislation, are what ? A. I couldn't tell you, sir. 

Q. The revision clerk? A. I don't know. 

Q. You know, I suppose that he is to be absolutely honest so 
for as the State and parties concerned in legislation are con- 
cerned ? A. I presume everybody is. 

Q. You know that he is, because he is in the service of the 
State ? A. Everybody in the service of the State. 

Q. He is ? A. I say everybody who is. 

Q. Can you see no inconsistency now, or no temptation to neg- 
lect his duty to the State, if at the same time he is receiving 
pay from private sources for performing a duty? A. I couldn't 
answer that question in the way it's put. I have already answered 
by saying if it did not interfere with his legislative duties or 
conflict in any way with them. 

Q. Then I want to know whether you see that it does inter- 
fere? A. I do not see it does interfere. 

Q. Then there would be no unfairness so far as you see with 
the obligations of Mr. Lewis to the State, which are, you concede, 
I suppose, to see that the bills that come in are properly revised 
and contain such provisions as are agreed upon in committee — 
that there is no inconsistency in his having a private retainer 
for the purpose of getting something into that bill that helps a 
private person ? A. N^othing at all, because it is not as you state 
whatsoever. The work that he did was to get it in shape and 
formed so that it would be a bill which would be a legal bill, 
and he used his legal knowledge, which wasn't necessary so far 
as the State was concerned. He was performing work for this 
man. 

Q. For Kendall ? A. Yes, to draft a bill. It isn't the duty 
of the Revision Clerk to draft a bill and hand it to a Senator to 
be introduced. 



4Y3 

Q. Surely not. A. Therefore, he wasn't interfering with any 
of the duties for which he was being paid by the State. 

Q. So that in your mind it is entirely harmonious with his 
duties that he should be working for Kendall for $250 in respect 
to legislation, that he also had duties to perform in regard to his 
work as Kevision Clerk? A. I don't say the same duties. In 
no way affect the same duties. 

Q. 'Now, for instance, your committee has a hearing upon this 
bill of Mr. Kendall's ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It is agreed that certain changes are to be made in the bill ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who should make those changes? A. The Committee. 

Q. What does the Eevision Clerk have to do ? A. Nothing at 
all, sir. 

Q. What are his duties ? A. His duties are when it comes to 
third reading, to see that it is in proper form, so far as relating to 
sections are concerned — relating to subject-matter and to see that 
the spelling is correct and various things of that kind, see that 
there are no errors, but nothing to do with drafting the bill or 
amendments to the bill. 

Q. But he has to do with seeing the bill is in correct form as 
adopted by the committee ? A. j^ot as adopted by the committee, 
but correct form so far as commas, periods, crossing t's, dotting 
i's, or section 122 of the Penal Code, or the proper designation of 
the bill as referring to the subject-matter. ]^ot as to what the 
contents of the bill are at all. He isn't to pass on the legality 
of it or the constitutionality of it. 

Q. Of course he doesn't, but he can and has the power — has 
the facility at least, of putting in that bill — A. He has not, sir. 

Q. (Continuing) — amendments? A. He has not, sir. The 
Eevision Clerk cannot amend a bill. 

Q. I say he has the power ? A. E'o, sir. 

Q. But he has the facility ? A. No, sir. 

Q. If he is working for a private party ? A. l^o, sir. 

Q. You mean to say he cannot impose upon the Legislature or 
upon the committee by inserting in a bill where they may not see 
it, a joker or something of that kind ? A. No, sir. 

Q. He can't do that ? A. :N'o, sir. 

Q. Then there is no inconsistency whatever if he should receive 
pay from every person who is interested in legislation, for ser- 



474 

vices rendered in drafting, revising or correcting legislation ? A. 
You seem to get away from the fact that this is not interested in 
legislation at all. This is interested in drafting a bill to present 
to the Legislature. It is up to the Legislature then whether they 
want to pass the bill or whether they want to amend the bill. It 
is the work which is initiated for the purpose of presenting 
something to the Legislature. 

Q. I am not talking about that at all? A. Then I may be 
mistaken. 

Q. I will ask jou again if you see any impropriety whatever 
then in the clerk of the Eevision Committee receiving pay from 
whoever wishes to pay him for drafting bills or making any 
changes whatever in bills that are to come before the Legislature. 

Mr. Wilson. — J^ow that is objected to on the ground that it has 
been asked repeatedly and repeatedly. 

The Chairman. — Yes, that has been gone over pretty well. 

The Witness. — l^o more than you and I trying law suits out- 
side. 

Q. 'Now you don't answer it now. This admits of an answer 
yes or no. A. I will say no, subject to the conditions I have 
already explained. I want to be perfectly fair. General, in the 
matter, nothing else. 

Q. I will now get down a little later in the history of this 
affair. Did you say that Mr. Field was present in the Senate 
dining room or lunch room on the 26th of February? A. I am 
positive they were there twice, the 26th and the 19th, General. 
That is they were there twice and I think those were the two days. 

Q. ^ow, you have introduced in here what was said in the 
hearing on the Stock Exchange bill in regard to Mr. Kendall, 
what was your purpose in introducing that in this case? A. 
Which ? 

Q. What was said about Mr. Kendall and his relations with 
the Stock Exchange? A. I didn't introduce anything in evi- 
dence, General. 

Q. What is that ? A. I didn't introduce anything to my 
knowledge. 

Q. Well, it has been introduced in your behalf and has been 
rather copiously read from? A. Because they show what the 
conversation was in my office when Kendall came there when he 
said on this stand there was no brief mentioned and I immediately 



475 

got into the question of money. That is the reason I suppose, 
that is why it was put in. That is what he referred to and his 
telegram referred to that very hrief. 

Q. I haven't got that far yet? A. You asked me why. 

Q. Yes, I asked you why? A. Because that is the conversa- 
tion we had and that is what we referred to. 

Q. It is for the purpose of showing you read from that report 
or that brief certain things for him over the phone one time? 
A. ;N'o, sir. 

Q. Or that you discussed it when you met him on the 24th? 
A. Yes. 

Q. You heard those statements made in regard to Mr. Kendall ? 
A. I heard — 

Q. His peculiarities, especially his antagonism so to speak 
towards the Stock Exchange. You heard him denounced at that 
time by the speakers as a man untruthful, as you say, that is the 
language this shows, a man unreliable and a man who was labor- 
ing under A^ery strong emotions, so far as the Stock Exchange was 
concerned ? A. You are mixing up the two meetings. There 
was nobody there at that meeting when that brief was filed which 
attacked Mr. Kendall at all. Mr. Milburn made no statement. 
He made no statement but finally filed that brief. 

Q. I stand corrected. In that brief he attacked him viciously ? 
A. Yes, but never spoke of that brief that night or read it or had 
anything to do with it. 

Q. You didn't pay any particular attention to it ? A. I^ot that 
night, no. 

Q. Did you at any time? A. When Mr. Kendall brought it 
to my office and spoke to me about it. 

Q. Your sjanpathies throughout were with Kendall ? A. Yes, 
sir, absolutely. 

Q. You thought from his story and reading this brief that Mr. 
Kendall was right ? A. I did and he had my sympathy all the 
way through. 

Q. And that he needed legislation for his protection ? A. I 
did. 

Q. And you regarded it as your duty then as a legislator hav- 
ing reached that conclusion to get beneficial legislation through 
for Mr. Kendall to prevent this discrimination? A. Because 
the Governor had sent him to me and I wanted some favors from 
the Governor too on some matters, and I wanted to help him. 



476 

Q. And witli tliat feeling on jour part, you feel it was not in- 
consistent for you to recommend tliat lie pay Lewis $250 ? A. I 
had nothing to do Avith it at all. He suggested it himself of his 
OAvn free will and accord. I had never given it any consideration. 
Q. Mr. Kendall didn't say at any time to you that he wanted 
to see you about a brief, did he ? A. Why, his telegram Avhich 
I got was in reference to a brief. 

Q. His telegram? A. Yes, the telegram he sent me on the 
20th. 

Q. You refer, I suppose, to this (indicating) ? A. I think 
that was the one. 

Q. That was — don't know whether it was a telegram or a 
letter ? A. I don't know either, but it was the one he referred to 
a brief in. 

Q. It is dated March 20th, " am informed Milburn put in 
brief last night. If so would be unfair to me if don't have oppor- 
tunity to write an answer. Will you loan me your copy by mail 
for one day?" A. Yes. 

Q. That is all he asked you to do ? A. Yes. That was on the 
20th and I wrote him on the 21st. 

Q. Just wait a minute. A. All right. 

Q. He didn't ask any conference with you to discuss a brief? 
A'. 'Not I with him. 

Q. He didn't ask for an opportunity — didn't put any bur- 
den upon you in regard to the brief except to ask you to send 
him^ — A. I^OT I with him. 

Q. But that is true? A. I didn't ask him to come to my 
office, either. 

Q. So there was no meeting so far as that communication is 
concerned and that is the only one you received bearing on the 
subject. There was no necessity for you to invite him to your 
office to see about a brief ? A. I did not invite him, sir. 

Q. (reading) : '^ I will be at my office, 261 Broadway, Mon- 
day next at 3 p. m., if you desire to see me about brief." A. 
If he desired to, yes, sir, about what he had telegTaphed me. 

Q. He had not expressed any desire to see you, unless it is 
expressed in this letter ? A. ^^ May telegraph you about a 
brief " — 

Q. That is all. I thought you would know. A. I — > 
Q. How long was he in your office on the 25tli? A. Oh, I 
should judge, probably, a half an hour — on the 24th it was. 



477 

Q The 24tli is right. That would be Monday ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. This letter would be on Friday. Yon sent it on Friday. 
Yon heard his testimony, that he said when he got in your pri- 
vate office yon said there is no brief, and he said I know that, 
but I realize from your letter that you wanted to see me. You 
say that did not occur ? A. 'No. It did not, sir. 

Q. Or anything of that sort ? A. It did not, sir, because there 
was a brief and I went over it with him. 

Q. I would like to have you tell us just what did happen? A. 
The moment we came in there Mr. Kendall spoke or I spoke, I 
am not so sure whether the civil matter was taken up first or the 
brief matters. We went over all these matters. It would be 
difficult to say which was taken first. We took up the civil suit 
and the brief matter and we talked about the incorporation mat- 
ter. We went over various things. I cannot say which was taken 
up first. It would be impossible. 

Q. The bill had been prepared, had been introduced and was 
substantially in the form that it now is ? A. Oh, no. 

Q. At the time of this conversation? A. Oh, no. The bill 
has been amended since, with this civil remedy. 

Q. When was it amended ; when was that put in \ A. Why, 
when I came back — no it was reported out with amendment 
and is amended now in the files. 

Q. When was the amendment put in providing for the civil 
remedy? A. I think the following Wednesday after I had the 
conversation with him. I am not so sure about that though I 
know it has been amended anyhow. 

Q. Do you remember giving Mr. Field or Mr. Kendall or 
both of them a -^^py of this book entitled " 1913, list of Members 
of Assembly ? " A. ^o, sir, and I never did it. E'ever. 

Q. You say you never did ? A. ISTever. 

Q. You say you have seen it? A. I have seen it here in the 
room. 

Q. Is that the first you ever saw of that book ? A. I have seen 
books similar to that. 

Q. You know there is such a publication? A. E'o question 
about that. 

Q. Very common ? A. I presume so. I don't think they are 
gotten out in the Senate. I think they get them out in the 
Assembly. 



478 

Q. It gives the members of Committees, the nimiber and who 
they are? A. I presume so. 

Q. And it would have been no trouble for Mr. Kendall or Mr. 
Field to find out that number at any time when they were here ? 
A. I don't know anything about them at all. 

Q. You say that what you were to do was to send him a tele- 
gram telling him the number of men, the members of the Com- 
mittee and afterwards you were to write a letter containing the 
addresses ? A. The names and addresses. 

Q. What posible use would the number be to him if he didn't 
know who they were ? A. He told me he wanted his subject pre- 
sented to each member of the Assembly because he had been before 
our Committee and it was so late when he got through and he went 
over before the Assembly Committee, that there were only about 
5 or 10 minutes for him and he did not have ample opportunity. 

He said I would like to get them printed and give each member 
a copy of them. 

Q. I understand that, and I ask you now what possible use the 
number would be to him ? A. So he could order from the stenog- 
rapher so many copies of the minutes of his conversation. That 
is what I understood him to say. I know of nothing else. 

Q. It would have been a much simpler matter to make one job 
of it and send him a letter with the names and also the addresses 
of the members of the Committee ? A. He said he would — 

Q. It w^ould have been — A. I am telling you what he said. 
I don't know anything about whether it would or not, but if he 
couldn't get the minutes from the stenographer — he wanted to 
order from the stenographer, the names would not amount to so 
much if he couldn't get the number when he got the names two or 
three days later he would have plenty of time. What he wanted 
was the number so he could order the copies of the minutes. 

Q. Senator — 

Mr. Wilson. — May I interrupt you just one second? Don't 
you recall the letter has been put in here in which he wrote to 
Lewis to engage a stenographer for him and he would pay him 

$25? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Oh, I know that welL I know 
all about that. 

Senator McClelland. — Is this the members of the Assembly or 
the Committee? 



4Y9 

The Witness. — The Codes Committee. 

Attorney-General Carmodj. — The members of the Codes Com- 
mittee of the Assembly. 

Q. ^i^ou knew snbstantially the nnmber of the members of the 
Codes Committee in the Assembly, didn't you? A. I did not, 
and I conldn't tell one member of the Assembly Committee today. 

Q. But you knew about how many were on the committee ? 
A. I did not. 

Q. But if a man were to order copies of a typewritten docu- 
ment or of a printed document he wouldn't need accurately to 
know the number of copies that he needed? A. I only know 
what Mr. Kendall told me, what his ideas were. 

Q. It is a fact that on the 27th day of March, you wrote him 
a letter in which you acknowledged that you have made a mis- 
take in 15 is the correct number telegram? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And in that letter you stated the number and gave the 
names ? A. That is the time I found out there was a mistake 
in the number when I got the names of the people. 

Q. You had a conversation over the phone with Mr. Kendall ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you had more than one conversation ? A. Yes. 

Q. Over the phone, there was a conversation over the phone 
on the 25th, and conversations on the 26th? A. A conversation 
over the phone on the 26th in the afternoon relative to this other 
letter. 

Q. After the telegram had been sent ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And before the letter had been sent ? A. The letter was not 
sent out at all that day. 

Q. Or two days later? A. Yes, and I didn't know any 
difference — • 

Q. ISTever mind, what I want to get straightened out on the 
record is that after you sent the telegram, 15 is the correct nima- 
ber, on the 25th day of March and before you sent the letter, on 
the 26th there had been several communications between Mr. 
Kendall and yourself over the phone ? A. Yes. 

Q. This conversation that he has narrated, these three con- 
versations on the 26th day of March had occurred over the phone? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That one — 

Mr. Wilson. — Wait a moment. I tried to object to that but 
I did not get a chance. 



480 

The Chairman. — What is the objection? 

j\Ir. Wilson. — The objection is that he gets him to say that 
the conversations Kendall testified to are true. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — After I pnt the questions and 
he answered. I didn't get him to say anything. He is able to 
take care of himself. 

Mr. Wilson. — I assume he is, but counsel tried to make him 

say — 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I object to counsel saying what 
counsel tried to say. The witness is here to take care of himself. 

Mr. Wilson. — I don't know whether he is or not. We are 
here to take care of him as well as of you. I insist on my objec- 
tion and ask the committee to decide it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It is decided. 

The witness. — All I testified to was three telephones on that 
day. 

Q. I don't mean to have you prove what took place — what he 
said took place, but these three communications took place be- 
tween you ? A. There were three communications, yes. 

Mr. Wilson. — I ask to strike out the answer that three con- 
versations testified to by Mr. Kendall occurred. 

The Chairman. — I think that was testified to by Mr. Kendall. 

Mr. Byrne. — That is not correct in form. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — All I want is the fact of the 
three conversations. 

A. Yes, that is all we want, that the three conversations took 
place. 

Q. Who were the stenographers who were to make out the 
copies for Kendall of what took place at the hearing? A. I un- 
derstand Mr. Kendall got Mr. Lewis to have a stenographer take 
his statements that day. I do not know the name of the stenog- 
rapher. 

Q. Were there stenographers before the committee? A. I do 
not know who the stenographer was. He was paid by Mr. 
Kendall. 



481 

Q. Do you liave stenograpliers at committee hearings? A. 
'No, sir, we don't. 

Q. Unless the parties desire them and if they do they pay 
them, themselves ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You understand that Kendall paid something or got some- 
body in there ? A. I believe so. 

Q. Do you knov^ who he was ? A. I don't know. 

Q. Or where he lived ? A. I don't. 

Q. Do you know whether the stenographer is an Albany stenog- 
rapher or not ? A. I don't. 

Mr. Wilson. — It appears on the book. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The Albany Eeporting Com- 
pany. 

The Witness. — I don't know the gentleman at all. I had noth- 
ing to do with it. 

Q. But you produced here as an exhibit a pamphlet containing 
the hearing on the bill ? A. There was testimony. That is, 
statements were taken down by a stenographer. 

Q. It would have been a very simple matter of course to have 
given the name, to have given the number and addresses to the 
stenographers who were furnished Mr. Kendall ? A. I know 
nothing about the stenographer. 

Q. It would have been a simple matter to do that ? A. I don't 
know anvthinff about that. 

Q. Wait until you hear m^^ question. It would have been a 
much simpler matter to do that than to telegraph the number and 
two days later send a letter containing the names and addresses. 

Mr. Wilson. — I object to it. 

Q. And then have him send copies of those names and ad- 
dresses ? 

Mr. Wilson. — Is your question over ? I never can tell when 
you are through. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — You don't listen long enough. 

Mr. Wilson. — I object to it as an improper and foolish ques- 
tion. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — What is the objection? 



482 

Mr. Wilson. — The question is foolish and improper, to ask if 
he could have given the number to the stenographers of the copies 
that he wanted. That is all your question is. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Are you through ? 

Mr. Wilson. — For the present. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Thank you for that erudite re^ 
mark. We will proceed. 

Q. It is a fact that it appears on this report at the hearing 
reported by the Albany Eeporting Company, 87 State street, 
Albany, 'New York, — do you know whether any report of Mr. 
Kendall's speech or remarks before that hearing was sent to the 
members of the Codes Committee? A. I don't know it. I 
don't know anything about what anybody else did. 

Q. You know nothing about that ? A. I don't know anything 
about that. 

Q. You never received any answer ? A. It was not to be 
sent to me. 

Q. And you didn't see any answer ? A. No, sir — I saw it, 
yes. I saw a copy of it before our committee. 

Q. I speak about any copy of this reported speech that was 
sent in response to your telegram? A. I don't know what they 
did. I can't know anything about it. 

Q. You don't know if any was sent? A. I don't know what 
was done. I merely did what I was asked to and that was all. 

Q. You did call up — you remember the date when that tel- 
egram was sent? A. On the 25th, I think it was. 

Q. The hour? A. I don't know. 

Q. It appears to have been filed at 12 : 10 ? A. Yes. 

Q. What was the next communication you received from Mr. 
Kendall ? A. The next communication ? 

Q. Yes. A. From when, what time? 

Q. After you sent that telegram? A. I think I called him 
up in response to the Milburn letter late that afternoon after I 
got the Milburn letter. 

Q. That would be the 25th you called him up? A, The 
same day. 

Q. You called him up on the 'phone? A. I think so, yes, sir. 

Q. You did not say anything over the 'phone about the mem- 
bers of the Codes Committee? A. I did not. I had already 
done what he asked me to. That was finished. 



483 

Q. At the time when you sent the telegram had you the Mil- 
burn letter ? A. ^o, sir, I had not. 

Q. The letter is dated the day before? A. True, and I 
didn't get it until after the session of the Senate and went down- 
stairs where I got my mail. 

Q. There is a portion of that letter you say you read to Ken- 
dall ? A. Yes. 

Senator Griffin. — I suggest in reference to letters, that they 
be designated by their identification number or in some way. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I propose to. 

Q. This is Defendant's Exhibit 16 for identification. For 
what purpose did you read from that letter. Senator, to Mr. Ken- 
dall? A. I don't think I read it all. I just told him the con- 
tents and then read a few lines of it. 

Q. That was practically what appeared in the brief, wasn't 
it? A. ]^o, sir, it referred to a statement that he filed with the 
committee as to the number of stockholders of the ISTew York 
Stock Exchange being directors in the American Bank 'Note Com- 
pany or vice versa, I have forgotten which. 

Q. As I recall it the portion that you say you read to Mr. Ken- 
dall is this — by the way, will you call my attention to the portion 
that you read. A. In his statement in regard to his list. The 
list was the list filed by Mr. Kendall in regard to the number of 
stockholders or directors in each company, that he wilfully sought 
to mislead and deceive the committee as to that statement, that 
that statement was false. For this reason I think it is unneces- 
sary to deal with any other allegations made by him. 

Q. They have said in this printed report of the remarks made 
in regard to Mr. Kendall that he had repeatedly made false state- 
ments ? A. But this is not referring to the list that he had filed 
that day with the Committee. 

Q. And with that exception only does it differ from what was 
said before the committee in regard to him? A. There was 
nothing said before the committee against Mr. Kendall that day 
at all. 

Q. The brief was filed ? A. The brief was filed, yes. 

Q. The brief that v/as filed was a very severe and specific 
arraignment of Kendall both in respect to his veracity and in re- 
spect to his dealings with the Stock Exchange? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The portion of the letter you refer to was precisely on the 
same subject? A. "No. 



484 

Q. With this addition only, in the statements in regard to Mr. 
Kendall, has wilfnlly sought to mislead and deceive the com- 
mittee ? A. Yes. 

Q. You say that was important enough so you called him up 
on the phone at 4:30 in the afternoon after sending that tele- 
gram, 15 is the correct number? A. The telegram had nothing 
to do with the letter at all. 

Q. You say you called him up ? A. He asked me to if any 
further brief was filed. Mr. Milburn said he might file a brief 
and he asked me if anything further was filed to let him know. 

Q. There was no brief ? A. This is it, sir. 

Q. That was later addressed to you ? A. Chairman of the 
Codes Committee. 

Mr. Byrne. — I don't want to interrupt the gentleman, but I 
think for the purpose of elucidating things that this letter should 
be introduced into the record so that the Senators may be able to 
read all the contents and therefore have a clear understanding 
of it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I hope I won't be constantly 

interrupted in the examination of this witness. Those matters 
may all wait until I get through. They may offer them after I 
finish. 

Mr. Byrne. — I beg pardon. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I don't want to be interrupted. 

Mr. Wilson. — You had very few interruptions compared to 
ours. 

Q. You heard Kendall swear that on this very date, the 25th 
of March, you called him up about 4.30 and asked him what he 
meant by that telegram. You heard that, didn't you ? A. I did 
hear him say so. 

Q. And you have seen the evidence here of the telegram with- 
out signature addressed to you and delivered in the Senate Cham- 
ber saying " Five for the thing as law is better than present un- 
certainty." You have seen that? A. I have heard what was 
introduced. 

Q. You heard what was introduced ? A. Yes, sir. 

Senator Griffin. — What is the date of that telegram ? 



485 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Marcli 25tli. The telegram, 
^^ Five for the thing as law is better than present uncertainty/' 
was sent after receiving this telegram, " 15 is the correct number." 

Mr. Wilson. — Just a moment, Mr. Carmody. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Where is the original? The 
other is the copy. I know what I am talking about. 

Mr. Wilson. — Let me see. I object to it. If you do know 
what yon are talking about you didn't read it right because it 
is a question of punctuation. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Wait a minute. Let the stenog- 
rapher read it. 

The stenographer read : " Five for the thing as law is better 
than present uncertainty." 

Attorney-General Carmody. — " Seems to me " is the telegram. 

Mr. Wilson. — Why don't you read it as it does read ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I didn't have it in my hand ; all 

I left out was '^ seems to me." " Five for thing as law seems to 
me better than present uncertainty." 

Mr. Wilson. — Let me read it the same as your newspapers 
published it and punctuated it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — What is that remark, your news- 
papers ? 

Mr. Wilson. — I did not mean " your." 

Attorney-General Carmody. — You said a good many unmean- 
ing things and I don't intend to have any more go on the record. 

Mr. Wilson. — (reading) 'Tive for the thing, as law seems to me 
better than present uncertainties." That is what the telegram says. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — You can read it several ways. 

Mr. Wilson. — You can read it several ways. 

Senator Brown. — Let me see it. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — ^o punctuation in the telegram. 

Senator Griffin. — Is there any notation on the telegrams as to 
the time they Avere sent and received respectively? 



486 

Attomey-General Carmody. — Yes, tlie telegram " 15 is the 
correct number " was filed at 12.10. The telegram '^ Five for 
thing as law seems to me better than present uncertainties," was 
received by Mr. Gorham at 3 something in the afternoon. 

Senator Griffin. — Can't you give the exact time ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — 3 :20 seems to be the right time. 

Senator Brown. — What is the date of the '^15 is the correct 
number " telegram ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — 12 :10. 

Senator Brown. — The same day ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — The same day. 

Mr. Wilson. — I assume that everybody understands that is a 
telegram that has never been delivered yet. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — It is in evidence. I want to get 
that right, that '' 15 is the correct number," was filed at 12:10 
and ^' five for the thing as law seems to me better than present 
uncertainties " from Mr. Kendall to Senator Stilwell was received 
at the 'Capitol that same afternoon. 

Q. And at 4:30 you called Mr. Kendall up on the phone? A. 
About that time I guess it was, because I know it was after the 
session I went over my mail and found this letter of Milburn's. 

Q. The following day there was some communication between 
Mr. Kendall and yourself ? A. Which I have already gone over 
with Mr. Lyon. He has asked me about it on cross-examina- 
tion. 

Q. 'No — A. I beg your pardon, he has. 

Q. I just want to ask you this. Can you tell me at what time 
in the day the first talk occurred ? A. Why, it was in the morn- 
ing. Do you mean when I was called up ? 

Q. When you were called up? A. It was in the morning 
around 11 o'clock, I take it. 

Q. That Mr. Kendall called? A. Yes. 

Q. What did he say to you ? A. I have already stated exactly 
twice what he said. 

Q. Can't you tell me the subject he discussed? A. I can if 
I am to be asked by half a dozen lawyers. I hardly think it is 
fair to be cross-examined like that. 



48Y 

Q. I want to get that. A. I believe it was on that morning 
at 11 o'clock. I really don't tliink it is fair to be cross-examined 
by half a dozen lawyers. 

Q. Do yon object to being cross-examined ? A. Not a particle, 
bnt I want to say I never saw it before. 

Q. How long did yon talk ? A. I don't know ; probably about 
ten minutes. It was a disconnected talk. I could not get phone 
connections. I had to holler Hello ! and that I can't hear you. 

Q. What w^as the time? A. About ten minutes, I think. 

Q. Do you object to being cross-examined? A. 'Not at all. 

Q. According to the evidence here it appears that you talked 
at this time thirteen minutes J A. I would not say it wasn't 
that. I don't know. I couldn't say. 

Q. Was there a talk later in that day ? A. Yes, I think there 
was around noon time, sometime. 

Q. What was that about ? A. Why, that was in regard to the 
information I had received from the Chairman of the Assembly 
Codes Committee and an objection as to the amendment about 
the civil suit. 

Q. And there was another talk later in the afternoon? A. 
That was after the matter in the committee had been voted 
favorably. He asked me to let him know what disposition might 
be made of it. 

Q. ISTow it is a fact that after these three telephone communi- 
cations on the 26th, that the bill was reported out of the Codes 
Committee of the Senate ? A. And it would have been probably, 
if there was never any communication. 

Q. But it was a fact it was reported out.? A. Absolutely, no 
question about it. 

Q. Now, what time in that day? A. Oh, I think around 
about four o'clock, somewheres around about that time. 

Q. That was between the second and the third telephone com- 
munication ? A. Yes, sir, the last telephone communication was 
in regard to what was done. 

Q. And you did call him up after the bill was reported out, 
and telephoned to him that it v/as reported out? A. I did, in 
answer to his request. 

Q. What was the occasion for the telephone the next morning ? 
A. He called me ; I didn't call him, sir. 

Q. What was that about,? A. I don't just exactly know. I 
know it was only for a minute or two. It was something whether 
the bill was going to be reported. I told him I had already 
written him fully in a letter, I have forgotten what it was, but 



488 

I know I referred to the letter. It didn't probably take a minute, 
what was said next morning. 

Q. 'Now it is a fact, Senator, that the bill was reported out of 
the Codes Committee of the Assembly the following day, the 
27th ? A. I know nothing about it at all. General. 

Q. Didn't you know it was reported out? A. Only that I 
heard it on Friday, the following day, and I heard in some way 
they had refused to amend the bill. 

Q. Didn't you report to him over the phone on the 27th, that 
the bill was reported out of the Codes Committee of the Assembly, 
and is not that the telephone communication we have on record? 
A. No, the last one on the 28th is, that I called him up when I 
heard about it, and told him that I heard the Assembly Codes 
Committee had reported it out, but refused to amend it so far as 
the civil suit was concerned. 

Q. You saw no objection to the insertion in that bill of the 
provision for the recovery of penalties ? A. If I did, I wouldn't 
put it in. 

Q. I assumed so. And you entered into entire harmony with 
his desire to have that protection? A. I did, sir. 

Q. You regarded the bill after it was drawn, knowing what his 
grievances were, as a proper legislative measure? A. Subject 
to the decision of the legislature. We have a right to present any 
legislation. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — That's all. 

Senator Brown. — I would like to ask one question. 

By Senator Brown: 

Q. Did you have a roll call on reporting this bill? A. I think 
there was, yes, sir. 

Q. Have you kept a record ? A. The records are all kept. 

Q. Have you got it where you can get at it ? A. I believe the 
clerk has, he keeps all of those records. I don't keep them at all. 
I have nothing to do with them. 

Q. You remember there was a roll call? A. No question. 
There isn't a bill goes out of there unless there is a roll call — 
every name and mark on it, who votes in favor of it or against it. 

The 'Chairman. — Anything further. 

Re-direct examination. 
By Mr. Byrne: 

Q. In speaking of the messages and letters sent by you, is it 



489 

not so, that you have a great number of messages and letters dur- 
ing the legislative session directed to you ? A. Probably fifty or 
sixty letters a day, and ten or fifteen or twenty telegrams, some 
days. _,. 

Q. Did he not state to you — by he, I mean Kendall > — in 
your office at j^ew York, or at some other time, that he had 
started an action against the N^ew York Stock Exchange, which 
was no good, as had been told him by competent attorneys in 
^ew York city ? A. I heard him make that statement before the 
Committee. I don't know^ whether he told me that personally. 
I wouldn't say so, I don't know. 

^Ir. Byrne. — ^N'ow, at this time I would offer in evidence the 
entire letter addressed to Hon. Stephen J. Stilwell, Chairman 
Committee on Codes, Albany, JSTew York, March 24, 1913, Car- 
ter, Ledyard & Milburn, so that it may be in entirety, submitted 
to the Commission. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I want to object to lumbering 
up this record. ISTow, they have read from this letter the portion 
they deem important. That is the record here. 

Mr. Byrne. — The important part of it is the fact that in this 
letter there is a statement as to who owns the stock in the Ameri- 
can Bank Note Company, as distinguished from those who are 
members of the New York Stock Exchange, which is very vital, 
which is part and cause for the conversation. 

Senator Griffin. — Did Senator Stilwell call his attention to 
that? 

Mr. Byrne. — He did. Senator, as has been testified to by Sen- 
ator Stilwell. 

Senator Bro^vn. — Have it marked for identification. 

Mr. Byrne. — It has been. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Senator Stilwell claims he read 
a certain portion of that letter over the 'phone. It is in the rec- 
ord. 'No objection to it, but it is the portion that talks about a 
lot of things connected with the Stock Exchange. 

Mr. Byrne (handing letter to Chairman). — I think for the 
purpose of seeiiig its competency, you should look at it. I refer 
you to page 3. 



490 

Senator Brown. — What useful purpose can it serve, except be 
'narked for identification ^ It is not binding in this controversy 
n any v^^ay. 

Mr. Byrne. — Binding in this sense, that it was the motive 
and cause for the telephone call to Mr. Kendall, and it came on 
the afternoon of which there was a telephone call at 4 :30, and 
he called' him up and spoke to him, and this was submitted by 
Mr. Taylor, of Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, and for that reason 
Avas in the form of an additional brief. 

Senator Brown. — If he wants it to explain his motive, I have 
no objection. 

The Chairman. — Do you want to read the whole thing in? A 
four-page letter, on the stationery of Carter, Ledyard &: Milburn, 
lated March 24th, 1913, addressed to Hon. Stephen J. Stilwell, 
Z'hairman Committee on Codes, Albany, ]S^ew York. In the mat- 
ter of Senate Bill ^o. 1188, and signed by Walter F. Taylor, 
Counsel for 'New York Stock Exchange. It will be submitted to 
the stenographer, and copied in the minutes. 

Senator McClelland.— Is it a part of the record, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. — Yes. 

Said letter is in words and figures as follows, to wit : 

'^ CARTER, LEDYARD & MILBURIS^ 

CoU:XSELLOES AT LaW, 

54 Wall Street, New York. 
John G. Milburn. 
Edmund L. Baylies. 
Lewis Cass Ledyard, Jr. 
Joseph W. Welsh. 
Walter F. Taylor. 

plohn G. Milburn. 
Devereux Milburn. 

MarcJi 24, 1913. 
'^ Hon Stepheiv J. Stilwell, 

Chairman, Committee on Codes, Albany, New York: 

Dear Sik.— In the Matter of Senate Bill No, 1188. 

I have received and read with interest the stenographer's min- 
utes of the argument made to your committee on March 19th by 
Mr, George R. Kendall, in support of the above bill. 



491 

The statement heretofore issued bj the Xew York Stock Ex- 
change in reference to the engraving of securities, a copy of which 
has been handed to jou and to each of the members of the com- 
mittee, makes unnecessary an extended reply to Mr. Kendall's 
argument. 

(1 ) I do not think that anyone will question the fact that mem- 
bers of the Stock Exchange are vitally interested in maintaining 
a high standard of engraving for listed securities. A certificate 
representing 100 shares of stock is ordinarily worth in the neigh- 
borhood of $10,000. A single coupon bond is usually worth 
$1,000. A registered bond may be worth $5,000, or $10,000 or 
$50,000. The volume of certificates of stock and bonds delivered 
and received makes any close scrutiny of the individual securi- 
ties, quite impossible. A single forgery or the raising of a single 
certificate of stock may subject a broker to a very great loss or it 
may be to utter ruin. It is therefore eminently reasonable for 
the Exchange to insist that all securities listed shall be so en- 
graved, and the engraving thereof surrounded with such precau- 
tions as to minimize the possibility of forgery or alteration. 

(2) The only v\^ay that the Stock Exchange can insure the 
maintenance of a proper standard of engraving and guard against 
the possibility of forgery, is to list only securities engraved by 
companies having special qualifications. It is utterly impractic- 
able to disregard the engraver in determining whether or not a 
particular issue of securities should be listed. The listing of 
securities is not a matter of passing upon completed work, but is 
a matter of deteniiining whether all of an issue will be up to 
the standard of one or two samples, and will continue up to that 
standard over a period of many years, and whether there are and 
will be during all that time proper safeguards against the forgery 
of the securities or the misuse of plates. In determining these 
things, it is as impossible to disregard the personality of the en- 
graver as it would be to disregard the personality of a physician 
in procuring medical attendance. Personal trust and confidence 
is an essential element. 

(3) The Stock Exchange has to determine for itself whether 
any particular engraving company has the qualifications which 
entitle it to the trust and confidence of the Exchange. There is 
no other tribunal to pass upon the matter. 

(4) Mr. Kendall in his statement to the Committee, has left 
untouched the proposition that the Exchange must, for the pro- 



tectioii of its members and the public, exercise discretion in re- 
spect to the engraving companies whose work it admits to its list. 
His contention is that in the case of his company the discretion 
has not been properly exercised. He lauds his own virtues and 
the merits of his own company, and has sought to impugn the mo- 
tives of the Exchange in declining to assent to his views on these 
subjects. 

All that I think it necessary to say in respect to his statement 
to the Committee can be put in a few words : To support the 
allegation which he has repeatedly made and which he renewed to 
the Committee that the action of the Stock Exchange was not an 
exercise of honest discretion, but was due to personal interest of 
the members of the Exchange in the American Bank ^ote Com- 
pany, he presented to the Committee a list of fourteen stock- 
holders of the American Bank Xote Company and asserted that 
each of these, with the exception of Mr. J. P. Morgan, was a 
member of the Xew York Stock Exchange, and that Mr. Morgan 
had seven partners who were members of the Exchange, and that 
Mr. William Kelson Cromwell had for many years been the 
counsel for the Exchange. The aggregate holdings of the fourteen 
stockholders named by Mr. Kendall are stated by him to be 
41,070 shares, or 23 per cent, of the entire stock. I shall take up 
his list in detail. 

Out of the 41,070 shares held by these fourteen shareholders, 
only 1106 are held by Stock Exchange members or Stock Ex- 
change firms. Mr. J. P. Morgan holds and has long held 6,2i50 
shares. Two of his partners are members of the Exchange. Mr. 
E. C. Converse, holding 7,000 shares, is the president of the 
Bankers' Trust Company, and an officer of the American Bank 
]^ote 'Company. He has no connection whatever with the Stock 
Exchange. Mr. William E^elson Cromwell, holding 1,828 shares, 
is not a member of the Exchange, and has never been its counsel, 
but on the contrary has for many years been counsel of the Con- 
solidated Exchange; J. P. De Lamar, the largest stockholder of 
the American Bank jSTote Company, holding 8,400 shares, is a 
director of that Company, and has no connection whatever with 
the Stock Exchange. W. L. Green and family are said to hold 
1,464 shares. Mr, Green is an officer of the American Bank ^N'ote 
Company, and has no affiliation with the Stock Exchange. Charles 
A. Moore, holding 2,100 shares, and William M. Moore, 5,267 
shares, are directors of the Bank ^N^ote Company, and have no 



493 

affiliation with tlie Exchange. Alfred Drexel, holding 
1,606 shares is not a nieniher of the Exchange, and to the 
best of my knowledge, has no connection with it. F. S. Smithers, 
holding 1,979 shares, is not a member of the Stock Exchange, or 
of F. S. Smithers <fc Companj^, or of any other Stock Exchange 
firm. Julius Stout, holding 2,058 shares, is not a member of the 
Exchange, or of a Stock Exchange firm. The same is true of 
A. D. Dominick, referred to as Dominick and family, and said to 
hold 2,128 shares, and the same is also true of E. M. Dominick, 
holding 338 shares. Bayard Dominick, holding 3,066 shares, is 
a member of a Stock Exchange firm, but not a member of the 
Exchange. A. V. Stout, who holds 1,000 shares is a member of 
the Stock Exchange, and of a Stock Exchange firm ; and Stout & 
Company, a Stock Exchange firm, hold 106 shares. A. Y. Stout 
and Stout & Company are, therefore, the only Stock Exchange 
members of Stock Exchange firms among the fourteen stock- 
holders named by Air. Kendall, and their holdings amount to 
only 1,106 shares. Mr. F. S. Smithers and the members of the 
Stout and Dominick families are or may be assumed to be 
relatives of Stock Exchange members. Except for them, and 
Mr. J. P. Morgan, the stockholders named in Mr. Kendall's list 
have no afiiliation whateyer with the Stock Exchange. 

In his statement in regard to this list, Mr. Kendall has wil- 
fully sought to mislead and deceiye the Committee and has shown 
himself to be without regard for truth, and unworthy of belief. 
For this reason, I think it unnecessary to deal with any of the 
other allegations made by him. 

I submit that the reckless disregard for truth shown by Mr. 
Kendall proyes that the Exchange in refusing to put trust and 
confidence in a Company under his management, showed good 
judgment and reached a sound conclusion. 

Yours truly, 

WALTER F. TAYLOR, 
Counsel for New York Stock Exchange." 

AY. F. T. 

By Mr. Byrne : 

Q. Senator, a telegram has been referred to here as " Fiye for 
thing as law seems to me better than present uncertainty." Did 
you ever receiye any such telegram ? A. ^ever did, or never 
saw a telegTam of that character. 



494 

Q. Senator^ it lias been testified here by Kendall, that he 
mailed in a letter box, diagonally opposite to his place of busi- 
ness at 75 Sixth avenue, ^ew York city, a letter which has been 
introduced into evidence by copy, in which there is reference to 
alibi. Did you ever receive any such letter ? A. I did not. 

Mr. Byrne. — That is all. Senator. 

The Chairman. — Any further questions ? 

Mr. Wilson. — I want to ask Mr. Field a single question. 

The Chairman. — Have you any other witnesses to follow ? 

Mr. Byrne. — Yes, we have. 

Mr. Wilson. — Was that telegram copied in your letter book, 
'^ Five for thing as law seems to me better than present uncer- 
tainty." 

Mr. Field. — 'No, I don't think it was. 

Attorney-General Carmod3^ — Miss Allen said it wasn't ; that 
she wrote it on the typewriter. 

Eleanor Maeder, a witness called on behalf of the State, being 
duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Direct examination. 

By Mr. Byrne: 

Q. Mrs. Maeder, will you speak loudly enough so that jmi can 
be heard by Senator GrifBn? A. I will try to. 

Q. You reside where ? A. Albany, IST. Y. 

Q. You are employed where? A. Senator StilwelTs office, in 
the Codes Committee. 

Q. You have been there during this session? A. Yes. 

Q. Do you remember a date referred to as February 13th, 
1913? A. Distinctly. 

Q. Do you remember on that day seeing at the Codes Com- 
mittee room, in which room you are employed, Mr. Kendall and 
Mr. Field? A. Yes. 

Q. Will 3^ou state at about what time it was that you saw them 
come there? A. 6:30. 



Q. Do you remember at that time how Senator Stilwell — 
. what yoiT were about to do at the time that you first saw them ? 
A. We were preparing to leave for the seven o'clock train. I 
had my hat and ooat on, and Senator Stilwell had his hat on, 
and was just putting his coat on in front of the mirror in our 
room. 

Q. To the best of your judgment, how long did Mr. Kendall 
and Mr, Field remain in the room, speaking with Senator Stil- 
well ? A. As they entered the room and introduced themselves, 
Senator Stilwell said, "' Gentlemen, you will have to be brief. I 
am just about to leave to make the seven o'clock train, and I can 
give you no more than ten minutes of that time ; " whereupon I 
looked at my watch and saw it was 6 :30. 

Q. You did catch the seven o'clock train? A. Yes. 

Q. What, to the best of your belief, was the amount of time 
consumed by them in that interview ? A. Exactly fifteen min- 
utes, for I looked at my watch again when we left, and saw it 
would be necessary for us to take the trolley in order to get to the 
station, in time to make that train. 

Q. You took that train, and as Senator Stilwell has said, it was 
delayed at some point ? A. About twelve hours before we got 
into 'New York. 

Q. You remember a date referred to in the testimony as March 
26, 1913? A. Yes. 

Q. Do you remember being in the Codes room on that day, 
when there was a telephone message in which Senator Stilwell 
spoke at the Albanj^ end ? A. Yes. 

Q. To the best of your recollection, do you remember about 
what time it was ? A. It must have been about eleven o'clock, 
for the Senator w^as just preparing to go upstairs to the Senate 
Chamber. 

Q. Will you state to the best of your recollection what yon 
remember of the conversation on the phone, relating what Senator 
Stilwell said, and such actions as occurred at that time ? A. The 
phone rang. Someone was trying to get our number, evidently, 
and Senator Stilwell heard voices, and kept saying hello, hello, 
which delayed the call about two or three minutes, I should judge. 
Then Senator Stilwell said, '' Yes, how do you do, Mr. Kendall." 
Then there was some speaking, and the Senator Stilwell said again, 
" Please sj)eak louder, I cannot hear you. This is a terrible con- 



496 

nection," or some similar words. Then the voice on the other 
side again. Then Senator Stilwell said, '' AYell, Mr. Kendall," 
not the exact words, this is what I remember of them : '^ I think 
I haA^e been fair to you, and I have been trying to help you all I 
can/' and then another voice on the other side of the phone, and 
Senator Stilwell said, ^' I know my Committee is in favor of this 
bill, and I think it will be reported out to-day." Then there was 
silence, and then Senator Stilwell said again, '^ You will have to 
speak louder, I cannot hear you," and then he said, " Yes, our 
Committee meets this afternoon after the Senate adjourns." 
Then some more talking, and Senator Stilwell said, '^ But our 
Committee does not meet until about four this afternoon, and we 
probably won't be through before six or so, but if we get through 
in time, I will call you up and tell you what we did about your 
bill. Then Senator Stilwell again said: " This is a terrible con- 
nection, I cannot hear you," ,and he kept shaking it up, and said, 
'^ Can't you give me a better connection," and then remarked 
something probably happened to the wire on account of the flood, 
and then he said, '' Mr. Kendall, I haven't any time to go over 
to the Assembly. There are fifteen members there, and I only 
know the Chairman. Why don't you call up your Assemblyman, 
who introduced the bill," or something similar to that '^ and let 
him attend to the matter for you. I could not even tell you on 
what day they meet." That is all I remember. 

Q. That was in the morning of the 26th? A. Yes. 

Q. Xow, were you in the room yesterday when Mr. Kendall 
testified that upon February 13, 1913, Senator Stilwell went to 
a drawer in a desk in the Codes room, took from it a book which 
has been marked into evidence here, and which book I show you? 
A. Yes, I was in the room. 

Q. You were in the room at that time ? A. Yes. 

Q. Were you present during all the time that Senator Stilwell 
was in that room with Mr. Field and Mr. Kendall on this oc- 
casion ? A. I was in there. 

Q. You stayed there during all the time? A. I stood at my 
desk and listened to the entire conversation. 

Q. Did Senator Stilwell take this 1913 list of members of As- 
semblymen from any desk in the room, and hand it to Mr. Ken- 
dall or ]\Ir. Field ? ^ A. He did not. 



497 

Senator McClelland: Is that the Assembly book? 

Mr. Byrne. — It is. Senator. 

Q. Did Senator Stilwell go to any desk or drawer at all in 
that room during that conversation? A. He stood with his one 
foot upon the last chair at the end of the table in the Codes Com- 
mittee room, and did not leave that position until we left to go 
out. 

Mr. Byrne. — That is all. 

Cross-examination : 

By Attorney-General Carmody: 

Q. You are in the employ of Senator Stilwell or of his com- 
mittee ? A. I am in the employ of Senator Stilwell. 

Q. You are his stenographer? A. Yes. 

Senator Stilwell. — I don't think you want that on the record. 
She is employed as a stenographer by the Senate, but she is 
assigned to my Committee. 

Q. You live in ;N"ew York ? A. I live here while I am up 
here. I have a home in l^ew York. 

Q. 'New York is your place of residence, is it, and not at 
Albany'? A. Yes. 

Q. Are you related to Senator Stilwell ? A. Xo. 

Q. Or to his family ? A. Yes. 

Q. What is the relationship ? A. His brother is my brother- 
in-law. 

Q. You secured your position through his influence? A. I 
suppose I did. 

Q. You regard him as the one who is responsible for your 
position ? A. Yes. 

Q. Xow, on the IStli of February, you remained in the room 
during all the time that Kendall and Field were there ? A. Yes. 

Q. And you saw every thing that happened. A. Yes. 

Q. And heard everything that was said ? A. Yes. 

Q. Was that w^hat you were there for? A. ^o; I was wait- 
ing for them to finish, because I was leaving on the same train as 
the senator, and we were going down together. 

Q. Did the conversation have any particular effect upon your 



49S 

mind, impress you in any way ? A. ISo, but the person did. Mr, 
Kendall impressed me as — 

Q. ]^J"ever mind. We are all anxious to tell something about 
Mr. Kendall here. We won't get you into it if we can help it. 
There was no particular reason why you should remember whether 
this little book was handed to these men by Senator Stilwell? 
A. 'Noj other than the fact that I stood at my desk, which is not 
three feet away from Senator Stilwell's desk, and he did not come 
to that end of the room at all. 

Q. He might have handed the book, if he had it in his posses- 
sion, without your remembering the fact ? A. I stood and looked 
at the three gentlemen, and he could not have done it unless I 
saw it. 

Q. You mean to say that could not possibly have happened 
without your knowing it, and having happened, you could not 
possibly have forgotten it ? A. I suppose it could have happened. 

Q. You do not mean to say you have a positive recollection that 
he did not hand this book at that time to those people ? A. I was 
asked did he go to the desk and get it. 

Q. I will ask you whether he did or not hand this book to either 
one of them on that occasion ? A. I did not see it. 

Q. That is about as strong as you will put it ? A. Yes. 

Q. Of course you would not undertake to say that he did not 
do it ? A. 'No. "^ 

Q. Did you make any notes or memoranda of the telephone 
communication that you have testified to ? A. No. 

Q. That took place on March 26th, I imderstand? A. Yes. 

Q. The number on this card is 3605. Would that be the num- 
ber of the phone of the Senator ? A. It is not. 

Q. You say that that is the phone that was used ? A. Not that 
number; that is not our number. 

Q. What is your number ? A. 1513 Main. 

Q. You know what 3605 is ? A. I did not know before to-day. 

Q. What is it ? A. The Senate Chamber. 

Q. And that is the number on this card indicating that the 
talk from the Senate Chamber, or from the Senate Chamber 
phone ? A. Yes. 

Q. Tell me if you will, the first thing after the introduction; 
by the way, you know that Senator Stilwell said, " Is this Mr. 
Kendall?" A. Yes. 

Q. Or mentioned Kendall's name? A. He said, '^ How do you 
do, Mr. Kendall." 



499 

Q. What is tlie first thing jou heard him say on the subject of 
what thej were talking about? A. I heard him say, ''Well, I 
have been fair to you, and I have been doing all I can for you." 

Q. Was that all ? A. JSTo. Then he said, '" I know my Com- 
mittee are in favor of this bill, and they will probably report it 
out." Then, as I said before, the Senator had considerable 
difficulty in hearing, and asked several times for the other party 
to speak louder, which delayed the phone call quite a little, and 
that is the reason probably it impressed it on my mind so well, and 
I listened to the entire conversation. 

Q. There was no particular reason why you should have 
listened to it, except because there was some difficulty in talking? 
A. I always stop my machine when the phone rings, because it 
is no more than two or three feet away from the telephone, and 
a person cannot hear unless I stop my machine. 

Q. But you really do not stop for the purpose of hearing what 
took place ? A. The Senator has often told me to listen to con- 
versations over the phone, that in case he makes any engagements, 
I should make a memorandum of them, and remind him of them 
in full time. 

Q. If he made an appointment over the phone, I suppose he 
would give you a date so you could keep it, and be sure of it? 
A. I would make a note of it. 

Q. Then do I understand you listen to all his telephonic com- 
mimications, to see if any appointments are made ? A. Yes. 

Q. Then you listen to hear what he says ? A. Yes. 

Q. So you listen to hear what he saj's ? A. Yes. 

Q. So as to keep track of his appointments ? A, Yes. 

Q. And you discovered, of course, that this communication 
was not one where he was making any appointment ? A. 'No. 

Q. So there was no occasion for your listening long there? 
A. I cannot help but hear when I am by myself. 

Q. There is no question but that you heard over the phone 
what you have testified to ? A. No. 

Q. Do you mean to tell us all that happened, or only all that 
you recall that happened ? A. That is all I recall. I won't say 
that is all that happened. 

Q. There were other things said? A. i^othing of any im- 
portance. Probably just an exchange of words that did not 
amount to anything. 

Q. You did hear the Senator say, " I might get it out of my 



500 

Committee this afternoon.'' A. He said, " I know of something 
similar." He said, '' The members of my committee are in favor 
of that bilL" 

Q. Did he say that •• I might get it out of mv Committee as a 
personal favor,"' something of that kind ? A. I don't remember. 

Q. You don't remember whether he put it that wav or not? 
A. 'No. 

Q. Or that he couldn't get it out, or that he wasn't sure that he 
could ? A. He said, '' I have no time to go over to the Assembly. 
There are fifteen members there. I only know the Chairman or 
some similar words to that effect. 

Q. Did he finally say, '' I will see what I can do." A. He 
said, ^' If I hear anything, I will call you up and let you know. 

Q. Did he say, " I will see what I can do with the Assembly 
Committee ? " A. Xot to my knowledge. 

Q. Or that he would report later as to the other Committee ? 
A. He said that he would call up in case we got through in time, 
and let him know what our Committee did in the matter. 

Q. That is about all you recall, is it ? A. That is all I recall. 

By Mr. Lyon : 

Q. You have been sitting here all day, have you not? A. 
Most of the day. 

Q. And you heard all of Senator Stilwell's examination ? A. 
E'ot all of it. 

Mr. Byrne. — We rest. 

The Chairman. — Anything in rebuttal ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I want to ask Mr. Kendall one 
question. 

George H. Kendall recalled in rebuttal. 
By Mr. Lyon : 

Q. Were there any briefs or transcripts of the minutes of your 
hearing before the Committee ever sent to the members of the 
Assembly Committee? A. ^o, sir. 

Mr. Lyon. — That is all. 

Mr. Bvrne. — That is all. 



501 

The Chairman. — Is there anythino; further ? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I think that is all. 

The Chairman. — Has the Committee any questions to ask. 

Mr. Lyon. — There is this to be said. We have subpoenaed 
here the records from the Appellate Division. AVe suggest that 
the Committee take them without comment and examine them. 

The Chairman. — I^To, I think the Committee will consider what 
has been before it. We have given both sides ample opportunity 
to make all the proof they wish. 

Mr. Lewis. — May I ask whether I may be permitted to place 
on record the fact that at the time of my dismissal it was not 
thought that — 

The Chairman. — The Committee has decided to sustain the 
objection raised by the Attorney-General. 

This Committee will prepare its report and counsel will be 
given an opportunit}', probably Monday or Tuesday; as soon as 
the report is ready, counsel will be notified, and the matter will 
be summed up pursuant to the resolution of the Senate in the 
Senate Chamber. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — I don't understand that. 

The Chairman. — I say this matter will be summed up. Ar- 
rangements will be made Monday afternoon or Monday evening, 
so that the counsel will have an opportunity to be heard before 
the whole Senate on the record, and state the facts as reported by 
this Committee to the Senate. 

Attorney-General Carmody. — And be heard either Monday 
afternoon or later? 

The Chairman. — ^N^o, I do not think w^e will hear the matter 
before next Tuesday. The evidence is closed now. There will 
be no further taking of testimony. The Judiciary Committee, 
as soon as possible, will report to the Senate the report of this 
proceeding, and the testimony taken, and also a statement of facts, 
and counsel will then be heard before the Senate as to the whole 
proceedings Tuesday morning, or Tuesday afternoon. 



502 

Mr. Wilson. — There are none of us quite clear on what is 
meant by a statement of facts, whether thev would be put in the 
form of questions — 

The Chairman. — That will all be decided bv the Committee 
in executive session. There will be an executive session of the 
Judiciary .Committee in the Judiciary Committee room. 

The hearing is closed. Counsel will take all the exhibits and 
file them with the Clerk of the Judiciary Committee. 

Hearing closed. 



.03 



Alba-sY, K Y., April 14, 1913. 

In the Matter of the Investigation by the Judiciary Committee of 
the Senate of the State of New York, into the Charg^es Preferred 
by George H. Kendall, Esq., against State Senator Stephen J. 
Stilwell. 

REPORT OF JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. 

To the Senate: 

Your Judiciary Committee, pursuant to the resolution adopted 
by the Senate, April 3, 1913, conducted an investigation into the 
charges preferred by George H. Kendall against Stephen J. Stil- 
well, Senator, on April 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th, 1913. At this 
investigation by your Judiciary Committee Senator Stilwell ap- 
peared by counsel, Edgar ]^. Wilson and William T. Byrne, 
Esquires; Mr. George H. Kendall by Edward P. Lyon, Esq., and 
your Committee by Thomas Carmody, Attorney-General, and 
Franklin Kennedy, Esq., Deputy Attorney-General. 

To sustain the charges made by George H. Kendall the follow- 
ing witnesses appeared, were sworn and gave their testimony: 
George H. Kendall, President of the IsTew York Bank ^ote Com- 
pany; George A. Field, Vice-President of the Xew York Bank 
iSTote Company; Ethel G. Allen, Treasurer of and stenographer 
for the ^ew York Bank E'ote Company ; John B. Fischer, an en- 
graver for the Xew York Bank ]^ote Company; Anna L. Pfleid- 
Brer, an employee of said company ; W. M. Pruyn, Manager of the 
Postal Telegraph Company at Albany, .N". Y. ; Hiram S. Gorham, 
in charge of the Postal Telegraph Company's office at the Capitol, 
Albany, ^NT. Y., and other minor witnesses whose names will ap- 
pear in the course of this report. 

In answer to the charges made by George H. Kendall against 
Senator Stilwell the following witnesses were sworn and gave 
their testimony : Stephen J. Stilwell, on his own behalf ; Samuel 
Lewis, jr., former Revision Clerk of the Senate; Eleanor Maeder, 
a stenographer in the Senate, assigned to Senator Stilwell; Ed- 
mund L. Marion, and other minor witnesses whose names will 
appear in the course of this report. 

Pursuant to your resolution, as aforesaid, your Judiciary Com- 
mittee herewith reports a record of all the proceedings had and 



504 

testimonv taken before your Committee in such investigation, 
and herewith presents a statement of the facts of such investiga- 
tion and proceedings for your consideration. Your Committee^ 
in this statement of facts^ has endeavored to separate the facts 
which it considers undisputed from those disputed and, in refer- 
ence to the disputed facts^ has endeavored to clearly set forth what 
the various witnesses have testified regarding them, with proper 
references to the pages of the record where the testimony in rela- 
tion thereto may be found. 

Statement of Facts. 

George H. Kendall, who makes the charges against Senator 
Stilwell, is fifty-nine years old and lives in New York city. He 
is the President of the New York Bank Note Company, the busi- 
ness of which is the engraving on steel of stocks, bonds and bank 
notes. The New York Bank Note Company has been in business 
for thirty-four years, formerly imder the name of the Kendall 
Bank Note Company, and has its place of business at 75 Sixth 
avenue. New York city. (See Kendall's testimony, pages 14, 
100, 101, 109 of the Record.) 

For twenty-nine years, Mr. Kendall claims, the New York 
Stock Exchange has discriminated against his company and other 
companies engaged in a similar business in favor of the American 
Bank Note Company and its subsidiaries, by refusing to list on 
its exchange any stocks, bonds or other securities except those 
printed and engraved by the American Bank Note Company and 
its subsidiaries. (Various pages in the Record.) 

The history of the transactions out of which the charges made 
grew, as testified to, with the disputed and undisputed facts sepa- 
rated, as indicated above, in their chronological order, is as 
follows : 

February 13, 1913. 

CoiTCEDED Facts. 

On this date George H. Kendall and George A. Field, Vice- 
President of the New York Bank Note Company, came to Albany 
from New York, and in the afternoon had a conference with the 
Governor, in reference to legislation to prevent the aforesaid dis- 
crimination by the New York Stock Exchange against their com- 
pany, and were sent by the Governor to see Senator Stilwell. 
Later in the afternoon, they went to the room of the Senate Com- 



505 

mittee on Codes in the Capitol, and saw Senator Stilwell, who 
was about to leave with his stenographer, Miss Eleanor Maeder. 
Mr. Kendall had a conversation with Senator Stilwell in reference 
to legislation to prevent the aforesaid discrimination, which re- 
sulted in Senator Stilwell fixing the following Wednesday, Feb- 
ruary 19th, as a time when Mr. Kendall was to appear before the 
Codes Committee of the Senate and explain his situation to the 
committee for the purpose of getting a legislative act which would 
prevent such discrimination. Senator Stilwell in the meantime 
was to look up the Penal Law and see where such legislation would 
fit in. (Kendall's testimony, pages 15 and 16 of the Record; 
Field's testimo]iy, pages 232, 233; Stilwell's testimony, pages 
432,433.) 

Disputed Facts. 

On this day and at this conversation, Mr. Kendall and Mr. 
Field claim that Senator Stilwell gave Mr. Kendall a book en- 
titled, " 1913, List of Members of Assembly and numbers of their 
respective seats. Arranged alphabetically and numerically. Com- 
mittee Directory of Assembly and Senate." This book contained 
a list of the diiferent committees of the Legislature of the State, 
particularly the names of the Committee on Codes, both in the 
Assembly and the Senate (State's Exhibit 17, page 289 of 
Record), and that this book was in the possession of Mr. Kendall 
from that time until the investigation, and that it was in his 
possession on the 24th and 25th of March, 1913. (Kendall's tes- 
timony, pages 270-273; Field's testimony, pages 289, 292, 293.) 

Miss Maeder, Senator Stilwell's stenographer, states that she did 
not see the book handed to Mr. Kendall, but would not undertake 
to say that Senator Stilwell did not do so. (Page 498 of the 
Record.) 

Fehruarij 19, 1913. 

CoxCEDED Facts. 

On this day, in response to Senator Stilwell's invitation of the 
13th, Mr. Kendall and Mr. Field came to Albany in the morning 
from Xew York, and met Senator Stilwell at the Capitol. In 
the afternoon they went to the Codes Committee room for the 
hearing on Mr. Kendall's proposed bill. While the hearing on 
the Moving Picture Show bill was being had, Mr. Kendall and 
Senator Stilwell met in the corridor of the Capitol outside the 



506 

Committee room. Mr. Field was also in the corridor. (Ken- 
dall's testimony, pages 17 and 18 ; Field's testimony, pages 234 
and 235; Stilwell's testimony, pages 433 and 434.) 

Disputed Facts. 

Mr. Kendall swears that during the progress of the hear- 
ing on the Moving Picture bill, on February 19th, Senator 
Stilwell got up from his seat where he was presiding as Chair- 
man, and beckoned Kendall to follow him; that together they 
went out in the corridor; that Senator Stilwell produced from 
his pocket two sheets of paper, a little larger than note size, and 
showed Kendall a proposed draft of a bill for his relief, and read 
it to Kendall; that Kendall said that it didn't seem to fit his 
case, to give the desired relief; that Senator Stilwell said in 
reply that it would take some research; that he was a lawyer 
practicing in 'New York, a member of a law firm, and that he 
ought to be paid for drawing the bill ; that Kendall said, '^ You 
surprise me a little, because the Governor mentioned to me that 
there was a bill drafting department, land sent me to you to have 
you hear my case and to have the bill dravTn;" that Kendall said 
to him, '^ How much will it cost anyway?" and that Stilwell 
stated, " It ought to be worth $500 ; " that Kendall said, " It 
could not take more than a couple of days' research to find out 
what you want to know, and I should think $100 a day would 
pay you amply;" that Stilwell said, ^' Make it $250;" and that 
Kendall said " All right." (Kendall's testimony, pages 17, 18, 
19, 20.) 

Senator Stilwell in respect to this transaction says that there 
was a conversation between himself, Mr. Kendall and Mr. Field 
after the hearing on the 19th was over; that he had made some 
memoranda while Kendall was talking, of what he wanted to ac- 
complish in his bill, of what he thought the bill ought to contain, 
and that while they sat there the following conversation ensued: 

Kendall. — '^ Senator, why can't you draw the bill ? " 

Stilwell. — ^' Mr. Kendall, I cannot do it, it is impossible ; I 
haven't the time to do it, and as a legislator I am not paid for 
that kind of work. You get your bill drawn. You know the 
circumstances, have your lawyer draw the bill." 

Kendall. — '^ I have no lawyer to draw the bill." 



507 

Stilwell. — ^^ You must haye a lawyer^ because you have been 
in litigation for over thirty years, you must have lawyers who 
understand it." 

Kendall. — '^They do not understand legislative drafting of 
bills. Are you a lawyer ? " 

Stilwell.— '' Yes." 

Kendall. — ''Can't you take it as a lawyer and draw it, and I 
will pay you for it." 

Stilwell. — '' ISo, while there is no legal reason, there is a 
moral reason and I won't have anything to do with it." 

Kendall. — '' Have you a partner? " 

Stilwell.— '''Yes." 

Kendall. — '^ Can't you draw it, and have your partner charge 
for it?" 

Stilwell. — " 'No, I won't do anything of the kind. I will tell 
you what you ought to do. The Grovernor has sent you to me. 
You go back to the Governor and ask the Governor for a letter 
to the bill drafting department. There is where we have got the 
best lawyers for drafting bills." 

Kendall. — " That is one thing I do not want to do. I am 
afraid the thieves of the Stock Exchange will put a joker in it, 
and I don't want anything to do with it, and I wish you would 
have somebody do it." 

Stilwell. — '^ There is a young man here who has been drafting 
bills for me, and who has looked after and done a lot of things 
for me, and who is now a revision clerk, and who I think has 
good ideas of how bills should be drafted. Now, if you want 
to pay for the drafting of the bill, and you want to hire a lawyer, 
as you say, you want to pay me, and you want that done," 
Kendall. 

Kendall.— ''All right." 

Stilwell. — "What do you want to pay for it?" 

Kendall.—" I will pay $250.00." 

Stilwell. — " Do you want me to see this man and see whether 
or not he will do it for you ?" 

Kendall. — " If you recommend him, he is satisfactory to me." 



508 

Stilwell. — '^ I will see the man and see whether or not he will 
do it for yon." (Stilwell's testimony, pages 434 and 435 of the 
record.) 

Field swears that he saw Senator Stilwell get up from his 
place as chairman and go out into the corridor accompanied by 
Kendall; that he saw Stilwell produce a paper and give it to 
Kendall; Field says he heard no conversation, but that Kendall 
came over after his conversation with Stilwell and showed Field 
the papers which was the suggestion of a draft of the bill. 
(Field's testimony, page 234.) Field says that in the presence of 
Stilwell Mr. Kendall asked him (Field) what he thought of it, 
and that he (Field) said he didn't think it covered the case. 
Senator Stilwell said, '' ^N'either do I ;" that that was practically 
all that was said in his presence. (Page 235.) He says that the 
name of Lewis was not mentioned in his presence that day by 
Senator Stilwell, but that it was mentioned to him by Mr. Ken- 
dall after they had left Stilwell. (Page 236.) 

The conversation testified to by Senator Stilwell as occurring 
in the Committee room after the hearing is also denied by 
Kendall. 

Testimony in RErEREN^CE to Incidents Happening Between 
February 19, and February 26, 1913. 

Senator Stilwell denies that he invited Kendall to speak on the 
26th on the Stock Exchange Incorporation bill. (Stilwell's testi- 
mony, page 435.) 

On February 20th, Kendall wrote Stilwell a letter asking to be 
heard on the Stock Exchange Incorporation bill, (State Ex. 1, 
page 21). Kendall claims that this letter was written at the 
request of Senator Stilwell, (Kendall's testimony, page 112). 

On February 19th and 20th Lewis claims that Senator Stilwell 
handed him a memorandum concerning a suggestion in regard to 
the drafting of the bill for Kendall. This was either Thursday 
or Friday, (Lewis' testimony, page 368). On the following Mon- 
day he presented a draft to Senator Stilwell and showed him a 
typewritten memorandum containing lead pencil notations, and 
Lewis redrafted the bill. On Tuesday he saw Senator Stilwell 
and showed him the bill he had drafted, and Senator Stilwell said 
that Kendall and Field would be there the- next day and that 
Lewis could go over the matter with them. (Lewis' testimony, 
pa^es 369, 396, 397 and 398.) 



509 

Prior to the 26th Stilwell claims he told Lewis of the conver- 
sation which he claims he had with Kendall and Field after the 
hearing on the 19th, and that if Lewis wanted to take it there 
was $250 in it for him; that he, Stilwell, didn't want any of it. 
(Stilwell's testimony, page 460.) 

Fehrmry 26, 1913. 
Co]N^CEDED Facts. 
On this day Kendall and Field came to Albany from 'New 
York and arrived at noon; they saw Senator Stilwell at the Senate 
Chamber; Senator Stilwell introduced Senate Revision Clerk 
Lewis to Field and Kendall as the man who was to draft the bill. 
Lewis and Field, leaving Stilwell and Kendall, went either to the 
revision room or the bill drafting room of the Senate to confer 
about the drafting of the proposed bill ; that Lewis, after an hour 
or two with Field, did draft the proposed bill. Kendall spoke be- 
fore the joint committee on the Stock Exchange Incorporation 
bill late that night and immediately thereafter Field and he re- 
turned to ISTew York. 

Disputed Facts. 

It is claimed on the part of Kendall and Field that at the time 
Lewis was introduced to them, or immediately prior thereto, Sen- 
ator Stilwell told Kendall that Lewis was the man to send the 
check for $250 to; that that was all the conversation had with 
Lewis about the $250; that all that Kendall saw of Lewis on that 
day was when he was introduced to Lewis, and that all Field saw 
of Lewis was when he was introduced to him and while he was 
drafting the bill in the Revision room. That Lewis gave him 
his card with '' Senate Revision Clerk, Albany, IT. Y.," written 
on it, and that he gave it to Kendall. (Field's testimony, page 
246.) 

Kendall states he took lunch with Senator Stilwell in the Cap- 
itol restaurant, but that nothing of importance was said. He 
denies that he and Lewis took lunch with Senator Stilwell. Field 
denies absolutely that he took lunch with Lewis or Stilwell or 
Kendall, but says that he took lunch at the Ten Eyck alone on 
that day. Field claims that his introduction to Lewis took place 
after lunch at about 2 :30 in the afternoon. (Field's testimony, 
pages 237, 238, 239; Cross-ex., pages 299 aud 300; Kendall's 
testimony, pages 25, 26, 27, 114, 188, 189, 190, 191 and 192.) 



510 

Stilwell and Lewis claim that on this day after LeAvis was in- 
troduced to Kendall and Field^ and after Lewis and Field had 
returned from their conference in the Revision or Bill drafting 
room, Kendall and Field with Stilwell went to lunch at the Cap- 
itol restaurant, where they met Lewis seated at a table; that 
Lewis and Kendall had a conversation at the table about putting 
a civil penalty in the bill ; that Lewis and Kendall had a conver- 
sation about the pajrment of $250 to Lewis for the drafting of 
the bill; that Stilwell said that that w^as Lewis' fee and that he 
wanted no part of it; that Lewis said that Kendall w^anted to 
know if he would pay him in cash and Lewis said a check would 
be all right as it was a legitimate transaction, and gave Kendall 
one of his cards with " Senate Revision Clerk, Albany, ]N^. Y.," 
written on it ; that after lunch nothing of importance happened 
between Kendall, Lewis, Field and Stilwell. (Lewis' testimony, 
pages 373, 374, 375; Stilwell's testimony, pages 435, 436, 437, 
460, 461, 467, 468, 469.) 

Fehruanj 27, 1913. 
CoN"CEDED Facts. 
It is conceded that on this day Kendall caused a check to be 
drawn by Miss E. G. Allen, as Treasurer of the New York Bank 
Note Company, to the order of Samuel Lewis, for the sum of 
$250, numbered 5865, dated at New York, February 27, 1913, 
drawn on the Trust Company of America, which check bears 
the endorsements, " Samuel Lewis, Samuel Lewis, Jr.," ; also the 
endorsement, " Pay to the order of National Commercial Bank 
of Albany, Stanwix Hall Hotel Co., M. HoUeran, President, E. 
L. Marion." (State's Ex. 10, Kendall's testimony, pages 74, 
75; Lewis' testimony, page 378). This check was in an envel- 
ope addressed to Samuel Lewis, Senate Revision Clerk, Albany, 
N. Y., and was accompanied by a letter written by Kendall, 
dated February 27, 1913, in which he said, " Enclosed please 
find check for $250 as per my promise of yesterday;" and also 
asked for a copy of the bill ^' drawn yesterday " and asked if it 
had been introduced. (Page 31 of the Record.) 

February 28, 1913. 
Conceded Facts. 
It is conceded that Senate bill No. 1188 was introduced in the 
Senate. 



511 

March 3, 1913. 
Co^N^CEDED Facts. 

It is conceded that Lewis wrote the letter dated March 3, 1913, 
from Senate Chamber^ Albany, to Kendall in Xew York, w^hich 
was received by Kendall, enclosing copies of Senate Bill ;N"o. 
1188, saying, among other things, " I may mention that I have 
not yet received, your check for $250, as agreed." (Pages 76 and 
77 of the Eecord; Lewis' testimonv, page 377; State's Exhibit 
11.) 

March 4, 19^13. 
Co]srcEDED Facts. 

It is conceded that Kendall from Xew York wrote Stilwell a 
letter to Senate Chamber, Albany, dated March 4, 1913, stat- 
ing, " Mr. Lewis writes enclosing copies of bills, bnt says he has 
not received check. I mailed it February 27th. He also says 
it has not been introduced in the Assembly. Will you please 
have it done. If not convenient, please notify me." (State's Ex- 
hibit 2, page 33 of the Record.) 

Lewis states that at 11 o'clock on this day he received Kendall's 
letter and check of February 27th, and acknowledged it on the 
next day. 

Traxsactioxs Coxceeis^ixg Check foe $250. 

Senator Stilwell denies that he charged Kendall $250 for 
drafting Senate Bill ^N'o. 1188 and denies that he divided the 
proceeds of the check with Lewis, (Stilwell's testimony, page 
455). He states that he knew Lewis was to receive $250 for 
drawing the bill for Kendall, (page 457) and states that the 
first mention of any price whatever for services to be rendered in 
regard to the drafting of the bill was on February 19th, and that 
the only parties present were Kendall and himself ; that Kendall 
offered him $250' for drawing the bill and that Stilwell told him 
that he would introduce him to a man who would draw the bill, 
(pages 467-468). Senator Stilwell said he saw nothing wrong 
or improper in Senate Revision Clerk Lewis taking $250 for 
drafting Kendall's bill ; that he knew of no other instance in his 
service in the Legislature where such a transaction took place, 
(pages 471-472). 

Lewis, in reference to the payment of $250, claims that no 
par't of it *went to Senator Stilwell, (Lewis' testimony, pages 385, 



512 

386, 410). However, he states that on March 29, 1913, Satur- 
day, in Senator Wagner's office in Kew York, while Senator 
Wagner, Kendall and Deputy City Clerk Prendergast of I:^ew 
York, were present, he, Lewis, admitted in their presence that 
part of the check had gone to Senator Stilwell ; that he stated in 
their presence that Senator Stilwell had gotten one-half of the 
$250 ; that one of the persons there present asked him if he didn't 
give it all to Senator Stilwell, and that he said in reply, " You 
might at least give me credit for keeping half of it." (Lewis' 
testimony, pages 414 and 415.) Lewis further claims in regard 
to the check that after he had endorsed it he gave it to Marion, 
clerk of the Stanwix, where Lewis was living, and asked him 
to collect the money ; that he gave it to Marion late on March 
4th or early on March 5th; that when he handed Marion the 
check he got ten dollars from him, and ten dollars the following 
morning; the following day he got twenty-five dollars and on 
Thursday $100 ; that from Tuesday to Thursday he got one hun- 
dred and forty-five dollars; that a week from that Thursday he 
got the balance; that within about ten days he got the money; 
that when he got the hundred dollars on Thursday night he gave 
back to Marion $20 he first got from him ; that when he was 
going home the following week he got the balance in an envelope 
with the little slips he had drawn during the week ; that wifh the 
balance he got from Marion, he went to ^ew York, paid some 
bills and gave $50 to his wife, and gave Senator Stilwell ten 
dollars that he had borrowed from him. (Lewis' testimony, pages 
421, 422, 423, 424.) 

Edmund L. Marion, clerk of the Stanwix, testified that he was 
clerk there at this time; that he cashed the check in question for 
Lewis ; that Lewis gave him the check in the evening and asked 
him to get the money on it, and let him (Lewis) have it as he 
called for it ; that he kept the money in the drawer, and advanced 
it to Lewis as he asked for it ; that the first week he gave him a 
hundred dollars and the next week a hundred and fifty dollars; 
that he drew it in small amounts ; that at no time was as large an 
amount as a hundred dollars drawn ; that he didn't get a hundred 
and forty-five dollars up to Thursday of the first week ; that there 
was a memorandum in the envelope containing the money, as to 
the amounts drawn ; that 'the said envelope was delivered to Lewis, 
and that he does not -remember how many payments there were. 
(Marion's testimony, pages 428, 429, 430, 431.) 



513 

March 5, 1913. 
Conceded Facts. 
It is conceded that Samuel Lewis, Jr., wrote a letter frora 
Senate Chamber, Albany, to Kendall in JSTew York, in which he 
said, " Received your check for $2'50, and thank you for same. 
Our letters must have crossed each other in the mail." (State's 
Ex. 12, page Y7 of the Eecord.) 

Mdrcli 7, 1913. 

Conceded Facts. 

It is conceded that Stilwell wrote Kendall a letter of March 7, 

1913, that there would be a hearing before the Senate Codes 

Committee " on the bill introduced by myself at your request, 

which is ]Sro. 1188," on March 19, 1913, at 3 p. m. 

On March 8th Kendall wrote Stilwell, acknowledging the 
receipt of this letter and saying he would be on hand at the 
hearing on March 19th. 

March 15, 1913. 

Conceded Facts. 

On this day Field wrote a letter to Lewis asking him to get a 

competent stenographer to take down Kendall's remarks on the 

19th, and that they would pay $25 for it. (Page 208 of the 

Record. ) 

March 19, 1913. 
Conceded Facts. 

It is conceded that on this day Field and Kendall came to 
Albany in the morning, and met Senator Stilwell in the Senate 
Chamber of the Capitol; that Field, Kendall and Stilwell then 
went to lunch in the Capitol restaurant, where they met Lewis at 
a table and sat down and had lunch with him; that there was a 
conversation regarding Kendall's bill, 'No. 1188, particularly 
with reference to a civil remedy being provided ; that after lunch 
Stilwell, Field and Kendall went down to the Codes Committee 
room of the Senate where a hearing was had upon Kendall's bill ; 
that J. G. Milburn, Jr., appeared in opposition to Kendall's bill; 
that after some discussion Mr. Kendall spoke first upon the hear- 
ing, and took about an hour; that a transcriDt of his remarks was 
taken, which transcript was introduced in evidence and marked 
Defendant's Ex. 2 for identification; that before Mr. Kendall 
spoke Mr. Milbum filed a brief, copies of which were handed 



514 

to the clerk of the committee and each member received one. 
(Stilwell's testimony, page 439 of Record.) This brief is Defend- 
ant's Exhibit 15 in evidence. It is conceded that Mr. Kendall 
received a copy of this brief before he spoke at the hearing. 
(Stilv^ell's testimony, page 439; Kendall's testimony, page 129.) 
The brief was one which had been sent to all the legislators 
nearly ten days before the hearing. (Field's testimony, pag^es 248, 
249.) Field further states that he and Kendall received a copy 
of this brief nearly ten days before March 19 th and that Field 
had compared the brief he received with the one submitted by 
Mr. Milburn and that they were identical. (Field's testimony, 
pages 248, 249.) After Mr. Kendall had finished talking at 
the hearing Mr. Milburn wanted to file a supplemental brief, 
within a week, but this privilege was refused by Senator Stilwell, 
who was chairman of the committee, and who told him, '' The 
committee, I think, understand the situation and with this brief 
that was filed and the statement of Mr. Kendall, we will close 
the matter." (Stilwell's testimony, page 440.) 

After getting through with the hearing before the Senate Codes 
Committee, Kendall went before the Assembly Codes Committee 
and spoke for perhaps ten or twenty minutes. (Kendall's testi- 
mony, page 124 of the Record.) 

Mr. Kendall states that he had a copy of the Milburn brief 
when he entered the room. (Kendall's testimony, page 129.) 

After the hearing closed, Field and Kendall returned to I^ew 
York. 

(See in support of above statements, Kendall's testimony, pages 
34, 35, 36, 127, 128, 129, 130; Field's testimony, pages 247, 248; 
Lewis' testimony, pages 381, 382, 383 ; Stilwell's testimony, pages 
437, 438, 439, 440, 442; Cross-Ex. 474, 475.) 

March 20, 1913. 
Conceded Facts. 
On this day Kendall sent Stilwell a telegram from 'New York 
to Albany, ^'Am informed Milburn put in brief last night. If 
so would be unfair to me if I did not have opportunity to read 
an answer. Will you loan me your copy or mail for one day. 
George H. Kendall." 

March 22, 1913. 
CoN^CEDED Facts. 
On this day Kendall received a letter dated March 21, 1913, 
from Stilwell, from Senate Chamber, Albany, addressed to him 



515 

at 75 Sixth avenue, l!^ew York City, in which he said, ''After 
speaking to you the other day about a civil suit, I looked up the 
law bearing on the matter and am convinced it can be accom- 
plished by adding a section, which I have added to the enclosed 
bill. I will be at my office, 261 Broadway, Monday next, at 3 
p. M.^ if you desire to see me about brief." (State's Ex. 5, page 
37 of Eecord.) With this letter was enclosed a printed copy of 
Senate bill 'No. 1188, on the second page of which is contained 
the proposed amendment in the handwriting of Senator Stilwell. 
This proposed amendment gave the right of civil action to anyone 
aggrieved by the discrimination of the ^ew York Stock Ex- 
change. (State's Ex. 6, page 37 of the Record; Stilwell's testi- 
mony, pages 443, 444.) 

March 24, 1913. 
Conceded Facts. 
On the afternoon of this day Kendall went to Stilwell's office 
at 261 Broadway. Kendall met Stilwell on his way to the ele- 
vator of the building and went up with him to his private office 
and a conversation ensued. There was no one else present. 

Disputed Facts. 
Kendall swears that either he or Senator Stilwell stated, as 
soon as they got in Stilwell's private office, " There is no brief," 
and Senator Stilwell said: 

Stilwell. — I want to see you on this matter. 

Kendall. — I realized that by the fact that there was no brief. 

Stilwell. — ^We may as well get down to business. Four of my 
committeemen want $500 apiece to report that bill out of com- 
mittee. 

Kendall. — This is only to report it out of committee ? 

Stilwell.— Yes. 

Kendall. — To report it out of committee into the Senate ? 

Stilwell.— Yes. 

Kendall. — If I should pay you that $2,000, would that insure 
its passing? 

Stilwell. — iSTo ; that is reporting it out. 



516 

Kendall. — Is there not another committee on Codes on the 
other side of the house, of the Assembly ? 

Stilwell. — Yes^ there is another committee there. 

Kendall. — Would that include the House side of reporting it 
out? 

Stilwell.— J^o, it might cost jou something. 

Kendall swears he asked Senator Stilwell how much, and Stil- 
well replied if anything he did not know, but he was going to 
Albany that night; that he was to be there at eight o'clock, or 
starting at eight o'clock. Witness did not remember. Stilwell 
further said that he would canvass the Assembly committee and 
find out what, if anything, it would cost and the next morning he 
would send a telegram in which there was a number, and if it cost 
anything that was to be the number of hundred dollars. (Ken- 
dall's testimony, 38, 39, 40.) 

Kendall continues, page 40, ^^ I told him I was surprised at 
the situation because I was impressed with the belief that when 
the Governor sent me to him with the proposed legislation, or that 
it was proposed to give me relying on the merits of the case and 
that even as it was that his demand indicated nothing to me "^ * 
* *; that if money was the thing that was used to get these 
things through that I might as well stay out, keep mine and stay 
out of the competition, as the Exchange could put up one hundred 
or a thousand dollars to my one, and he said that the Exchange 
has not put up anything on my bill. I said, ^ Do you mean on the 
other ? ' He said, ' Yes, and there was no kick coming on the 
size of the amount or the barrel.' " 

Stilwell gives the following version of these conversations, page 
444. He admits they went into his private office together. He 
says Kendall pulled out the bill with the amendment for civil 
suit, which had been sent Kendall by Stilwell in a letter of the 
21st; that he said he had been reading it over; that it was satis- 
factory to him and was what he wanted ; that he wanted to collect 
the money himself from the Stock Exchange, and not have the 
criminal penalty where it would be no benefit to him, and asked 
him, Stilwell, if he would not amend it accordingly. Then he 
spoke about the Milburn brief and called Stilwell's attention to 
some things in that brief claimed to be derogatory to his char- 
acter. Referring to the brief left with the committee on Eeb- 



517 

ruary 19tli by Milburn, Kendall said he objected to the attack 
•upon his character. Stilwell claims he underscored portions of 
the brief that he wished to call Kendall's attention to, and he 
states he read over the brief at page 4, a long extract of which 
appears at pages 446, 447 and 448 of the Eecord. He says Ken- 
dall stated, ''After the hearing before your committee the other 
night (March 19th), up there, I went over before the Assembly 
committee for only five or ten minutes to talk to them. I don't 
think I' could explain it in that time fully. I made a good ex- 
planation before your committee. I wish you would find out how 
many members there are of the Assembly Codes Committee so 
that I can order the minutes from the stenographer and have them 
sent to me." He said, '^ If you will do that and telegraph me 
the number and then send me the names so I can have the ad- 
dresses in a letter, I will be thankful to you." I said, '^ I will 
do so." Then they took up the incorporation matter. Stilwell 
says Kendall stated, " 1 have been approached by someone repre- 
senting the Assembly Committee." 

Stilwell. — Ask him did anyone come down to see him. Ken- 
dall said they did not have to come down. 

Stilwell. — Ask who it is that came to see Kendall. Kendall 
said, " I won't tell." 

Stilwell says he assured Kendall that there was no proof of any 
charge against the Committee or Chairman. (Stilwell's testi- 
mony, pages 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450.) 

March 25, 1913. 
Conceded Facts. 
It is conceded that on this day, Stilwell, at Albany at the 
Capitol, sent a telegram to George H. Kendall addressed to 75 
Sixth avenue, E"ew York City, with the following words : " Fif- 
teen is the correct number." This telegram was filed at 12 :10 
p. M.^ at the Capitol office of the Western Union Telegraph Com- 
pany (page 42, State Ex. 7, testimony of W. H. Van Zandt, 
Manager of Western Union Telegraph Company, pages 44, 45). 
On this telegram appears the word, " Charge " and is stamped 
" Charged to Clerk of the Senate." Kendall received this tele- 
gram a short time afterwards. At 4 :47 in the afternoon of this 
day. Senator Stilwell called up Kendall in Xew York at Spring; 



518 

937 from the Senate Chamber 'phone, 3605. There was a charge 
of three dollars a minute on the call and a conversation, accord- 
ing to the record of the call, lasting for one minnte and thirty 
seconds. 

Disputed Facts. 

Kendall claims that after receiving the telegram from Senator 
Stilwell, ^'- Fifteen is the correct number " he sent a telegram 
from the Postal Telegraph Company, unsigned, addressed to 
Stephen J. Stilwell, Senate Chamber, Albany, ^N. Y., with the 
following words : '' Five for the thing as law seems to me better 
than present uncertainties." (Kendall's testimony, page 46.) 
Field testified that this telegram was written by Miss Allen, the 
stenographer; that Kendall read it to him before he sent it and 
that it was sent to the telegraph office. (Field's testimony, pages 
251, 252, 253 and 254.) Miss Ethel G. Allen, stenographer for 
the E'ew York Bank iN'ote Company, testified that she took from 
dictation this telegram, '' Five for the thing as law seems to me 
better than present uncertainties " and took it to the telegraph 
office at the Brevoort House and gave it to the telegraph operator ; 
that she had written it on a telegraph blank after half-past one. 
(Miss Allen's testimony, pages 316, 317, 318 and 319.) 

Mr. W. M. Pruyn, Manager of the Postal Telegraph Company 
at Albany, produced under subpoena the telegram as filed in the 
'New York office of the Postal Telegraph Company. (State Ex- 
hibit 23, page 319.) It appears from this telegram that it was 
filed at 2 :43 and had marked on it " no sig." Mr. Pruyn also 
testified that his company kept a record of telegrams received 
and delivered. When a telegram is received a water copy is made 
of it, after which the original message is put on a delivery sheet 
and given to a messenger boy and sent to the addressee. The 
water copy on tissue paper was produced by Mr. Pruyn from the 
Albany office of the Postal Telegraph Company and admitted in 
evidence. On this water copy appears the number 146. (State's 
Exhibit 14, page 90 ; Pruyn's testimony, pages 46, 47, 48 and 
89.) 

John Korzetsky, a messenger boy for the Postal Union Tele- 
graph Company, testified that he got a telegram, a copy of State's 
Exhibit 14 ; that the water copy on tissue paper was prepared by 
the copy girl (named Kirschler) in the Albany office of the Postal 
Telegraph Company ; that the telegram to be delivered is written 
on the ordinary blank and is then put in an envelope and the num- 



519 

ber on the envelope corresponds to the number on the water copy, 
in this case State's Exhibit 14; that the envelope with the tele- 
gram in it, which he was given to deliver, had the same number 
on it as the tissue copy (State's Exhibit 14) ; that he knew that 
the telegram enclosed in the envelope was a copy of the tissue or 
water copy of the telegram (State's Exhibit 14). He also testi- 
fied that with his telegrams he is given a form of the company 
with the telegrams he is to deliver and their respective numbers 
listed thereon, upon which the person receiving the telegram, re- 
ceipts. That he got the telegram in question at tho Albany 
office of the company and came up to the Capitol, to the Senate 
Chamber, but could not get in and then took it to the Capitol 
office and gave it to the Manager, Hiram S. Gorham. He left 
his office for the Capitol at 3:05 in the afternoon of March 25th 
to deliver the telegram (Kendall's testimony, pages 79, 81, 82, 83, 
84 and 85). 

Hiram S. Gorham, Manager of the Postal Telegraph Company 
in the Capitol, was sworn and testified that Korzetsky delivered 
the telegram in question to him at the Capitol office and ]-eceipted 
for it on Korzetsky's delivery sheet; that this was the only tele- 
gram that was left for him to deliver to Senator Stilwell that day. 
Gorham receipted for the telegram at 3 :20 p. m. (page 46 of 
Record) ; that within ten minutes after he had received the tele- 
gram he went to room 230 on the second floor of the Capitol and 
did not find Senator Stilwell; that he went back to the Senate 
Chamber, went inside and handed it to one of the attendants at 
the brass rail at the entry of the Senate, and requested him to 
give it to Senator Stilwell ; that he did not know who the attend- 
ant was and he got no receipt for it. (Gorham's testimony, 
pages 85, 86, 87, 88 of Record.) 

Kendall further claims that when Senator Stilv/el] called him 
up on the phone from Albany on the afternoon following his 
sending the aforesaid telegram to Stilwell, that Stilwell, whooe 
voice he recognized, said : " What does your telegram mean ?" 
and he, Kendall, said, '^Just what it says," that if he paid 
the three thousand five hundred dollars there was no cer- 
tainty that it would do any good; then Stilwell said: 
" Well, what will you do, will you pay the money or not ? '^ 
and Kendall said, " I don't see any use of paying it," and 
that Stilwell said, " Well, if you are not willing to pay 
me $3,500 in advance, there is nothing doing on reporting 



520 

those bills out of committee. (Kendairs testimony, pages 
48, 49, 50.) Kendall further testified that Mr. Field, the 
Vice-President, was upstairs at the time this conversation took 
place and came down to his door jusit too late to get his telephone 
and hear. Kendall had made an arrangement before Stilwell 
called up to have Field at the office to listen if Stilwell did call 
up after Kendall sent the telegram, ^' Five for the thing as law 
is better than present uncertainties." (Kendall's testimony, page 
52.) 

John B. Fischer, engraver for the ISTew York Bank 'Note Com- 
pany, testified that on Tuesday of the week of March 2'5th, a call 
came on the telephone wire and Mr. Kendall took it in his private 
office ; that Mr. Kendall came to the door of his private office and 
called for Mr. Field ; that he, Fischer, went to the telephone and 
called up the finishing room, two fioors above, for Mr. Field ; that 
Miss Pfleiderer, an employee, in the finishing room answered the 
telephone and called for Mr. Field ; that within a few minutes he 
saw Mr. Field coming from the private office of Mr. Kendall 
(Field's testimony, pages 329, 330 and 331). 

Anna L. Pfleiderer, an employee of the New York Bank Note 
Company, testified that upon Tuesday of the week begiiming 
March 24, she remembers Mr. Fischer called upstairs on the 
telephone for Mr. Field; that she answered the telephone and 
that she told Mr. Field that there was a call for him to go down 
to the office; Mr. Field went out of the room in a hurry, down- 
stairs. (355, 356.) 

Senator Stilwell concedes that he sent the telegram by the 
Western Union — ^' fifteen is the correct number " — on the 
morning of March 25th; that he sent the telegram after he had 
taken a little white book and counted fifteen as the number of 
the Assembly Codes Committee, which telegram he sent pursuant 
to his promise made to Kendall the day before at Stilwell's office, 
as testified to by Stilwell, when Kendall wanted the number and 
names of the members of the Assembly Codes Committee for the 
purpose of sending a copy of the minutes of the hearing of 
March 19th to such committeemen. (Stilwell's testimony, page 
450.) iSenator Stilwell denies that he received the imsigned 
telegram from Kendall with the words: ^' five for the thing as law 
seems to me better than present uncertainties" (State's Exhibits 
14 and 24, page 46). Senator Stilwell denies that he had the 
conversation testified to by Kendall on the afternoon of the 25th. 



521 

He denies that lie demanded $3,500 in advance for reporting the 
bills out of the Senate and Assembly Codes Committee. He 
testified that after sending the telegram " fifteen is the correct 
number " he received a letter from the firm of Carter, Ledjard 
& Milburn signed by W. F. Taylor, a member of the firm of 
Carter, Ledyard & Milburn. This letter was dated March 24, 
1913, and received in evidence. (Pages 491, 492, 49^3 of 
Record.) That after receiving this letter he called Kendall on 
the phone in Xew York and told him that he had received a letter 
from Milburn's law firm in which they had denied his statements 
made at the hearing of March 19th, as to the members of the 
I^ew York Stock Exchange holding stock or securities of the 
American Bank Note Company and read him a part of the letter, 
in which it was asserted that Kendall had wilfully sought to mis- 
lead the committee and had shown himself to be without regard 
for truth and unworthy of belief, and that the reckless disregard 
for the truth shown by Kendall shows that the Exchange in 
refusing to put trust and confidence in a company under his 
management showed good judgment, etc. That after reading 
this portion of the letter Stilwell said: ^' Mr. Kendall, from a 
reading of that you had not ought to have your bill reported out 
of the committee,'' and Kendall said : ^' I hope you don't feel 
that way towards it" and Stilwell said: '' I will see what I can 
do." (Stilwell's testimony, pages 450, 451, 456, 482, 483, 484 
ynd 486.) 

Kendall denies that the telegram " fifteen is the correct num- 
ber " was sent so that he (Kendall) could order copies of the 
stenogTapher's minutes of his speech at the hearing on March 
19th to send to the members of the Codes Committee of the 
Assembly. He testified that he had a copy of the stenographer's 
minutes of the hearing before the Codes Committee on March 
19th. (Kendall's testimony, page 122.) The hearing was 
reported by the Albany Reporting Company, 87 State street, 
Albany, IsT. Y. Kendall got his copy from such company. He 
only obtained one copy of the stenographer's minutes of the 
hearing and one is all he has ever seen. (Kendall's testimony, 
pages 122j 123.) Kendall also testified that there were no briefs or 
transcript of the minutes of the hearing of the 19th ever sent 
to the members of the Assembly Codes Committee. (Page 500 of 
Record.) 



522 

March 26, 1913. 
CoisrcEDED Facts. 

It is conceded that, upon this day, Kendall at his office in ^N'ew 
York called up Senator Stilwell in 'the Senate Chamber, Main 
3605. A record of this call, produced by the telephone company, 
(State Ex. 30) shows that Spring 937 called Main 3605, Senate 
Chamber, Stephen J. Stilwell. 'Bo other number appears upon 
the record slip except Main 3605, the number of the Senate 
Chamber 'phone. The call was made at 11.05 and the connection 
was made at 11.17. The call lasted thirteen minutes and a charge 
of four dollars was made. (Pages 362, 363.) 

Disputed Facts. 

It is claimed by Senator Stilwell that he received this call not 
on the Senate Chamber 'phone. Main 3605, but at his Committee 
room 'phone, Main 1513, Albany. (Stilwell's testimony, page 
452.) However, the record slip of the telephone company shows 
no other number than Main 3605, Senate Chamber. The slip of 
the telephone communication of March 28th, shows that Spring 
937 called up Main 3605, Senate 'phone, and the conversation 
took place over 'phone Main 1513. Both numbers appear upon 
the slip. (Page 365 of the Kecord.) 

■ It is conceded that Senator Stilwell, at Albany, from 'phone 
1513, called up Kendall at his !N'ew York office on this day at 
about 1 :36 p. m. and talked with Kendall. The call lasted two 
minutes. (State Ex. 25, pp. 362, 363, 364, 365 of Record.) 

It is conceded that, upon this day. Senator Stilwell, from Main 
1513, Albany, again called up Kendall at his ISTew York office, at 
about 4:21 p. m. and talked with him, and this call lasted one 
minute and thirty seconds. (State Exhibit, p. 362 of Record.) 

It is conceded that upon this day, in the afternoon Senate bill 
1188 was reported out of the Codes Committee and handed into 
the Senate by report of the Chairman, on the 27th. (Stilwell's 
concession, p. 366 of Record.) 

Disputed Facts. 
At the first call and conversation which Kendall had with Stil- 
well on this day the connection at Mr. Kendall's private office, 
at 75 Sixth avenue, ^ew York city, was made by Mr. Field, with 
whom Kendall had made an arrangement to listen at his 'phone to 
the conversation and take down notes of it. 



523 

Kendall said at first : '^ Is this Senator Stilwell ? " and Senator 
Stilwell said : '^ Yes." Kendall then said to him that he had been 
thinking the matter over and did not intend to be thrown down or 
balked this way; he didn't think there was any intention on the 
part of the Governor that' he Kendall, should meet with the propo- 
sitions that Stilwell had put before him, or that his bills were to 
be denied a reporting out of his Committee or the Assembly Com- 
mittee, unless he, Kendall, paid Stilwell; that he, Kendall, had 
been in the fight for thirty-four years and seeing that he had 
gotten so far in the matters in Albany, he did not intend that 
Stilwell should balk him and that he intended to send to the 
Governor and to every member of the House and of the Senate 
the following telegram: 

" Stilwell declines to report Stock Exchange Bill I^To. 1188 out 
of Committee unless I pay him $2,000 for his Committee and 
$1,500 for Assembly Committee on Codes. Have already paid 
him $250 for drawing bill. Have documents sustaining these 
statements. What shall I do to get justice?" 

Kendall then said : '^ JSTo, Senator, I will give you to-day to 
report my bill out of that Committee. If you don't, I will let 
this telegram go." Stilwell said: ^' JSTow, Mr. Kendall, that is 
not fair. You know I have done a great deal for you and really 
have been your friend." Kendall said: " Yes, but now you hold 
me up and won't do anything further that you ought to do unless 
I pay you $3,500." Kendall said: '^ You can do as you please, 
but all this thing will come out. I will rip the thing wide open 
and tell the Governor and the entire Legislature unless you report 
that bill out from the Committee." Stilwell said : " Well, give 
me a little time on it and I will see my Committeem.en. I will 
see what I can do about it. On the other side of the house, I 
absolutely cannot do anything. If your sending these telegrams 
is dependent upon getting that bill out of the House Committee 
through me, I tell you now I can't do it." Kendall said : " Well, 
do as you like. I will send these telegrams to every legislator in 
Albany if you don't, commencing with your o"^ti Committee. Do 
as you like. Make it as short as you like. Call me up in fifteen 
minutes and tell me what you wish to do about it." Stilwell 
said : ^' Give me more time than that." I said : '^ All right, go 
ahead." 

The telegram which Kendall threatened to send he had upon 
a piece of paper before him and told Stilwell to take a pencil and 



524 

take clown tlie telegram; that Stilwell said: ''Wait a moment/' 
and then Kendall dictated slowly. 

Further at this conversation, Stilwell told Kendall that the 
Codes Committee of the Senate had a meeting that afternoon and 
that his bill would pass the Codes Committee in the Senate as 
he had canvassed it. 

Kendall also testified in this conversation that Stilwell said 
it was hopeless for him to get the bill reported out of the As- 
sembly Committee, and Kendall said : '' There is such a comity 
of interest between you people in the Legislature that I believe 
thoroughly that you can and you will do it, or out these tele- 
grams go. Take your choice." (Kendall's testimony, pages 52, 
53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62.) 

Kendall also said to Stilwell at this first conversation on the 
'phone: " Probably the papers won't publish it if we give it to 
them., but after 'every legislator gets this telegram, it will be a 
public document." 

Kendall further said at this 'phone conversation : " I then 
said to him, ' I don't want to send these telegrams out, or put 
you in any hole, but I want to get justice, and if that bill is not 
reported out by both Committees this afternoon, the telegrams 
go ;' " that Stilwell replied : '' That is not fair, Mr. Kendall, for 
I have nothing to do with the Assembly Committee. I might be 
able to get it out as a personal favor to me from my Committee, 
but you know I cannot control the Assembly." Stilwell said: 
" There are fifteen members of that (Assembly Committee) and I 
can't do anything there." (Cross examination of Kendall, pages 
145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 15i6, 158.) 

Kendall further testified that he said to Stilwell: ''Well, T 
am on the wire and you can talk with mc in fifteen minutes. 
Think it over and let me know about it. l^ou know I have been 
perfectly straight and fair with you. You know T will do what 
I say, but I have got to know that this bill is reported out by 
the two committees this afternoon." (Cross-examination of 
Kendall, page 165.) 

Field testified, that in the morning of this day Kendall told 
him to call up Albany on the 'phone, which he did and got Sen- 
ator Stilwell on the wire at the Senate Chamber at Albany, and 
recognized his voice when he answered. Kendall's 'phone had 
been previously connected with his private office and his (Kield's) 
'phone was connected with his desk ; that he went to his desk and 



525 

by pre-arrangement listened to the conversation that took place; 
that he took notes of the conversation as nearly verbatim as he 
could. This memorandum he wrote out on the typewriter im- 
mediately afterwards. (Field's testimony, pages 255, 256, 257.) 

Field held the receiver in his left hand and wrote with his 
right hand upon pieces of paper. (Field's testimony, pages 303, 
304, 305.) 

Mr. Kendall talked over the phone slowly, so that Field could 
take it doAvn. That had been arranged between them. (Field's 
testimony, pages 311, 312.) 

The original memoranda which Field made of the three con- 
versations had between Kendall and Stilwell on this day were 
admitted in evidence as State Exhibits 18 to 22 inclusive. (Page 
314of Eecord.) 

Field testified the conversation started by Kendall asking: 
" Is this Senator Stilwell talking ? " and Senator Stilwell replied : 
"It is." Then Kendall said: "I have been thinking over that 
proposition and have decided that I will not be thrown down at 
this time. I am preparing the following telegram, which I will 
send to the Governor and every member of the Legislature if that 
bill is not reported out tonighit." 

Then Kendall read the following telegram : " Stilwell declines 
to report Stock Exchange Bill 'No. 1188 out of committee unless 
I pay him $2,000 for his committee and $1,500 for Assembly 
Committee on Codes. Have already paid him $250 for drawing 
bill. Have documents sustaining these statements. What shall 
I do to get justice ? " 

Stilwell replied : '' Do you think that is fair, Mr. Kendall ? " 
Mr. Kendall said : " Well, I am not going to be thro^vn down at 
this time." Stilwell said: ^' You know I have been doing all I 
can for you. I have been friendly to you all along." Kendall 
said : " Yes, but you have thro^^m me do^^m now and I don't 
intend to be thrown down now after fighting thirty years for 
justice, to be thrown down by you or any other legislator, and 
unless this bill is reported out by both committees before night, 
this telegram shall be sent out." Stilwell said : " That is im- 
possible, Mr. Kendall, because I have nothing to do with the 
Assembly Committee. As a personal favor, I think I could get 
it reported out by the Senate Committee on Codes, but there are 
fifteen members. of the Assembly Committee and I have no control 
over 'them. Kendall said: "The papers won't publish this, if 



52G 

we tell them. After the telegrams are sent to every legislator, 
it will be a public document. If necessary, I will put a sign across 
my building and in front of the Capitol at Albany." Stilwell 
said: ''I will see what I can do with my Committee." Kendall 
said : ^' Very well, let me know." Kendall said : '^ I don't want 
to send these telegrams out or put you in any hole, but I want to 
get justice and if that bill is not reported out by both Committees 
this afternoon, I shall let the telegrams go." Stilwell said: 
^' That is not fair, Mr. Kendall. I have no'thing to do with the 
Assembly Committee. I may be able to get it out as a personal 
favor to me from my committee, but you know I can't control the 
Assembly Committee. There are fifteen members of that and I 
can't do anything." Kendall said: ''You are a man of im- 
portance and there is such a comity of interests that you can get 
it reported out if you want." Stilwell said : " That is im- 
possible. You might as well understand that now. It is im- 
possible to do anything. I don't even laiow when they are to have 
a meeting." Kendall said : " 1 am on the wire and you can talk 
with me in fifteen minutes. Think it over and let me know. 
You know I will do what I say. I have got to know that this bill 
is reported out by the two committees this afternoon." Stilwell 
said: ''I tell you it is impossible. I don't know whether the 
Assembly meets today or not and I can't do anything with them. 
The most I can do is to get it through the Senate Committee." 
Kendall said : '' Well, I think you can. There are several 
members of the Assembly Committee who are friendly to the bill 
anyway." Stilwell said: ''I will call you up tomorrow morn- 
ing." Kendall said : '' That won't do. I must know today." 
Stilwell said: " It is not fair to ask me." Kendall said: '' 'Now, 
see what you can do and telephone me before two o'clock." Stil- 
well said : " There is not any way I can tell about the Assembly 
Committee." Kendall said : '' Well, then, I had better let the 
telegrams go out, but think it over and call me up before two." 
Stilwell said: ''Very well." 

Further in the course of the conversation Kendall said : " I 
am fighting the fight of my life, and if I go down — I don't care 
a damn if I do — if I don't get these bills passed, I will be the 
worst licked man in Albany or anywhere else, or know the reason 
why." (Field's testimony, pages 256, 258 to 268, 281). 

At the conversation had over the 'phone on this day at 1:30, 
when Stilwell called up Kendall, Field again listened and took 



notes of what was said, at his 'phone. Stilwell said: '^ I have 
taken a poll of my committee and everything will be all right." 
Kendall said: '' Then it will be reported ont by your committee.'^ 
Stilwell said : ^' Yes. I will go over now and see what I can do 
about the Assembly Committee." Kendall said : ^' Call me np as 
soon as yon know, or later on, about it." (Field's testimony, 
pages 281, 282.) 

At the conversation held in the afternoon, at abont 4:30 of 
this day, when Stilwell called np Kendall, Field was again at 
the 'phone. He heard the telephone ring and went to his desk, 
picked np the 'phone and recognized Stilwell and Kendall talking. 
The first part of the conversation he did not get. He saw Miss 
Allen with the receiver at her ear, taking notes. As soon as he 
connected himself with the 'phone, he took np the receiver and 
motioned to her that he w^onld attend to it. She then pnt down 
her receiver and Field listened and made verbatim notes. The 
first sentence he got was Stilwell saying: ^' I talked the matter 
over with that party and he says it will be all right." Kendall 
said : " Then it will be reported ont of the Assembly to-day." 
Stilwell said : " It will come ont of my committee to-night and 
probably the Assembly also." Kendall said : '' When will yon be 
in :nW York ?" Stilwell said : " Friday." Kendall said : '' Then 
I will call yon up to-morrow." (Field's testimony, pages 282 to 
284; Kendall's testimony, pages 58, 62.) 

Miss Allen, the stenographer, testified that she knew of the 
telephone call from Albany about half-past one on the 26th. 
Kendall had started for lunch and Field went and called Kendall 
back. Kendall went to his private office and Field went to his 
desk and took up the receiver. Later in the afternoon a call came 
from Senator Stilwell from Albany. Mr. Kendall had told her 
he was expecting a call from Senator Stilwell. When the call 
came, she took up the receiver, because she had been told to listen 
to the conversation if Mr. Field was not in the office at the time. 
After putting the receiver down, she took it up again and heard 
part of the conversation. In her notes she took down : " I talked 
that matter over with that party and he says he will take it up 
and thinks it will be all right." That was all she heard. Mr. 
Field came in at this point and took up his receiver and 
motioned to her and then she hung up her receiver when 
she saw Field have the receiver to his ear, and that he 
was listeninio'. The conversation s-he took could have been written 
in longhand by a rapid writer. Mr. Field dictated to her the 



528 

record of the conversations which he, Field, heard on the 'phone 
this day from the notes which he took which, after typewriting, 
she gave back to Mr. Field. (Miss Allen's testimony, page 324.) 

Stilwell claims that, when Kendall called him up on the morn- 
ing of the 26th, he had this conversation. He was seated in his 
Codes Committee room and had the conversation there. Kendall 
said: ''Is this Senator Stilwell?" I said: ''Yes." He said: 
" This is Mr. Kendall." I said : " How do you do, Mr. Kendall." 
He says : " Senator, I have been thinking over that situation of 
the Milburn matter," and he says : " After fighting the New York 
Stock Exchange for over thirty years, I don't want to be thrown 
down by anything like that, if I can help it. I hope you won't 
feel that that letter or brief will prevent you from doing anything 
for my bill." He says : " I hope you will give me fair ^treatment." 
(Stilwell's testimony, page 452.) 

Then Stilwell said : " Mr. Kendall, I have always been fair to 
you. I have tried to treat you fair. I have done everything I 
can for you. I know this committee favors your bill. I will 
bring it up before the committee for further consideration when 
they meet." 

Kendall asked Stilwell when they would meet. Stilwell told 
him, after the adjournment of the Senate that day. Kendall 
wanted to know if Stilwell would not call him up and let him 
know immediately as soon as action was taken on the matter. 
Stilwell said : " Mr. Kendall, I don't think the Committee will 
meet much before four o'clock, and it will probably be some time 
before we finish the work — ^ probably six o'clock, and it might 
be too late to let you know to-day. I can do this for you : I can 
bring your matter up one of the first matters and if the committee 
is favorable to it and there is time to notify you, I will call you 
up." 

Kendall wanted to know if Stilwell would not do him the favor 
to find out how the Assembly Committee was. Stilwell said: 
" 'No, I can't do that Mr. Kendall. That is not fair to ask me. 
I would have to go over there and waste my time and inter^^iew 
fifteen members of that committee. I don't know one of them — 
the only one I know is the Chairman. I don't know when they 
meet, but I would suggest to you the proper thing for you to do 
is to call up your member of Assembly who introduced that bill 
and let him look after the matter over there. Also Stilwell told 
Kendall in this conversation that if he heard anything about the 



529 

Assembly, lie would let him know. (Stilwell's testimony, pages 
452, 453, 454.) 

Stilwell claims that the telephone wire was in bad shape that 
morning, that the conversation was disjointed and disconnected 
and that every once in a while he had to say: " Speak louder'^ 
or '^ Hello '' (iStilwell's testimony, pages 452, 453.) 

Senator Stilwell claims, with reference to the conversation at 
1 :30 of this day, that, about noontime, the Chairman of the 
Assembly Codes Committee was passing, and he talked with him; 
that after this talk he went to the telephone and telephoned to 
Kendall and told him that he had seen the Chairman of the 
Assembly Codes Committee and the Chairman was not disposed 
to be favorable to the amendment for the civil suit ; that they did 
favor the bill without that and that he had better get busy with 
his Assemblyman if he wanted to have the bill the same, and he 
had better call his xlssembl;yT2ian up. (Stil well's testimony, page 
454.) 

Senator Stilwell claims, in regard to the conversation at about 
4:30 o'clock in the afternoon of this day, that, in the afternoon, 
the Codes Committee of the Senate had an executive meeting 
and that Kendall's bill 1188 was taken up and was voted favor- 
ably on; that he then called up Kendall and told him that the 
Committee had voted favorably on his bill and it would be sent 
up to the Senate the next morning. (Stilwell's testimony, page 
454; see also, in reference to the conversation on this day, cross- 
examination of 'Stilwell, 486, 487.) 

Eleanor Maeder, Stilwell's stenogTapher, testified that about 
11 o'clock on March 26th, she v/as in the Codes Committee 
room of the Senate and 'Senator Stilwell was talking at the Al- 
bany end of the telephone. When Senator Stilwell took up the 
'phone, he kept saying: ^^ Hello, hello," which delayed the call 
about two or three minutes. Senator Stilwell said : '^ How do 
you do, Mr. Kendall?" There was some speaking and Senator 
Stilwell said again : " Please speak louder, I cannot hear you. 
This is a terrible connection." Then Stilwell said : " Well, Mr. 
Kendall, I think I have been fair to you and I have been trying 
to help you all I can." Then the other voice said something and 
Stilwell said : '^ I know my Committee is in favor of this bill 
and I think it will be reported out to-day." Then there was 
silence and Senator Stilwell said : " You will have to speak 
louder. I cannot hear vou." Then Stilwell said : ^' Yes, your 



530 

Committee meets this afternoon after the Senate adjourns." 
There was some more talking, and Senator Stilwell said: '' But 
our Committee does not meet until about four o'clock this after- 
noon and we probably won't be through before six or so, but if 
we get through in time, I will call you up and tell you what we 
did about your bill." Then Senator Stilwell said: ''This is a 
terrible connection. I cannot hear you." Senator Stilwell kept 
shaking the telephone and said : '' Can't you give me a better 
connection," and then remarked: ''Something probably hap- 
pened to the wire on account of the flood," and then Senator Stil- 
well said : " Mr. Kendall, I haven't any time to go over to the 
Assemblv. There are fifteen members there, and I onlv know the 
Chairman. Why don't you call up your Assemblyman who in- 
troduced the bill, and let him attend to the matter for you. I 
could not even tell you on what day they meet." (Testimony of 
Mrs. Maeder, pages 494, 496 of Eecord.) 

On cross-examination, Mrs. Maeder testified that Senator Stil- 
well's brother was her brother-in-law and that she secured her 
position through the influence of Senator Stilwell and was the 
stenographer of the Senate, assigned to Stilwell's Committee. 
(Mrs. Maeder's testimony, page 497.) 

Mr. Williams, district trafiic chief of the 'New York Telephone 
Company, testified that during the week of March 26th his lines 
in some directions were not Avorking properly during that week; 
he could not state any particular lines, only generally. He tes- 
tified that the time on the telephone record showed that the con- 
nections of March 26th of Kendall and Stilwell were made very 
promptly after the calls were put in ; that the line between here 
and New York was working all right on March 26th ; that there 
was no delay on account of storms. (Williams' testimony, page 
425.) 

March 27, 1913. 

Conceded Facts. 

It is conceded that on this day there was a telephonic communi- 
cation between Kendall in his ofiice in ISTew York with Senator 
Stilwell at the Senate Chamber, Albany. The record shows that 
it took place about 10.42. (State's Exhibit 27; Williams' testi- 
mony, 262, 263.) 

Disputed Facts. 

Kendall claims that this conversation was listened to by Field 
at his phone, and it is claimed by Kendall and Field that the 



I 



531 

conversation was : Stilwell said : '' Your bill was reported out of 
the Senate Committee last night, and the Assembly Committee 
had a very late session — had a very late hearing, and did not 
go into executive session, b.ut they will take it up today, and it 
will probably be reported out some time today.'' Kendall said: 
^' Then, well will you know, six o'clock?". Stilwell said: ''I 
think about five." Kendall said: '' Very well, I will call you up 
at five." Kendall also said: ''You see, Senator, I am in deadly 
earnest about getting this bill passed " and Stilwell said : '' Yes, 
and I will do all I can to help you. I have written you a letter 
about it." (Field's testimony, page 285 ; Kendall's testimony, 
pages 63-66.) 

Stilwell testified that at this conversation Kendall called him 
up to know whether he had reported the bill and was going to 
report the bill to the Senate Committee. I told him I had already 
written him a letter explaining the whole thing and also giving 
him a list of the members of the Assembly, and that the bill would 
be reported that morning. Kendall asked if the Assembly Com- 
mittee had done anything and Stilwell told him that he didn't 
know but that if he found out he would let him know. (Stil- 
well's testimony, 455.) 

Field testified that he tried to get Stilwell at -Q-yg o'clock in 
the afternoon and again at six o'clock but couldn't get him at 
Albany. 

In the record there is a letter dated on this day, March 27, 
1913, written by Senator Stilwell at Albany to Kendall in Xew 
York. This letter is as follows : 

''March 27, 1913. 
''Mr. Geoege H. Ket^dale, 75 Sixth Ave., :N'. Y. City. 

Dear Sir. — The Senate Codes Committee reported Senate bill 
'No. 1188 introduced by me, amended as you suggested for civil 
action and as chairman I handed the report to the Senate this 
morning; the bill is now before the Senate for action. • 

In the telegram I sent you I said the number of members of 
the Assembly Codes Committee was fifteen, this was a mistake in 
count. I find that the correct number is thirteen, consisting of 
the following named persons, viz : Patrick J. McGrath of ISTew 
York, chairman; Fred C. Schwarz of Rensselaer, A. Greenberg 
of New York, Earl S. Dietz of Kings, Edward Dox of Schoharie, 
Charles J. Carroll of l^ew York, Wm. P. Hamilton of Kings, 
Joseph D. Kelly of New York, S. A. Cotillo of New York, John 



532 

C. Pemberton of Tioga, K. L. Richardson of Allegany, John 
Knight of Wyoming, S. Sufrin of ^N'ew York, to whom you can 
send any brief or printed matter addressed to them to Assembly 
Chamber, Albany, K". Y. 

I spoke to the chairman of the Assembly Codes Committee and 
he agrees with me that not only your company, but others as well, 
are being unjustly discriminated against by the Exchange and he 
favors reporting the bill from his Committee to the Assembly. 

I shall use every proper means to have the bill become a law. 
Respectfully yours, 

S. J. STILWELL." 

(State's Exhibit 8, page 67 of Record) also an envelope (State 
Exhibit 8-A) postmarked March 27, 11 p. m., Albany, :^r. Y. 
Kendall testified that he had received this letter on Saturday, 
March 29. (Kendall's testimony, pages 66, 67.) 

Senator Stilwell testified in respect to this letter, that the letter 
was sent by him on March 27th; that it was sent before Kendall 
telephoned him in the morning of this day and that he told him 
on the telephone that he had mailed him a letter. (Stilwell's 
testimony, 454, 455.) 

March 28, 1913. 

Conceded Facts. 
It is conceded that upon this day about 1 :24 o'clock Stilwell 
called in Albany from Main 1513, Kendall in !N'ew York at 937, 
Kendall's office on Sixth avenue. The call lasted for one minute 
and fifty seconds. It is conceded that Kendall's bill E"o. 1188 was 
reported out of the Assembly Codes Committee on March 27th 
and was reported to the Assembly on March 28th (page 366 of 
Record.) 

Disputed Facts. 

Stilwell called up and said to Kendall : ^^ The bill has been re- 
ported out of the Senate Committee or Codes Committee and is 
now on the fioor of the Senate. It was also reported out by the 
Assembly Committee " and Kendall said : '^ So I understand." 
Stilwell then said : " I wanted to call you up and let you know 
that everything is all right." Kendall thanked him. (Field's 
testimony, pages 286, 287; Kendall's testimony, page 66.) 

Stilwell testified that on this day he ascertained that the As- 
sembly Committee had reported his bill without amendment of 



533 

the civil remedy for the collection of the penalty; that he tele- 
phoned Kendall and Kendall said he had received the informa- 
tion from his Assemblyman, and Stilwell said : " Very well, then, 
you know everything." It is conceded that this was the last tele- 
phonic communication between the parties. (StilwelFs testi- 
mony, page 455.) 

March 29, 1913. 
Disputed Facts. 

Kendall testified that after he received Stilwell' s letter dated 
March 27th, on the same day he wrote Stilwell a letter to the 
Senate Codes Committee, Albany, 'N. Y., which letter is as 
follows : 

March 29, 1913. 
^' Hon. Stephen J. Stilwell, 

''Senate Codes Committee, 'Albany _, N. F.; 

Dear Sir. — Your alibi of the 27th received, but I don't 
think your explanation of telegram is conclusive. For one reason, 
it is not given until after I had notified you of my intention to 
send the following telegram to the Governor and every member 
of the Legislature. 

' Stilwell declines to report Stock Exchange bill 'No. 1188 out 
of Committee unless I pay him two thousand dollars for his Com- 
mittee and fifteen hundred dollars for Assembly Committee on 
Codes. Have already paid him two hundred and fifty dollars for 
drawing bill. Have documents sustaining these statements. 
What shall I do to get justice ? ' 

Your explanation above referred to having been written on the 
27th, which was two days after the sending of the telegram which 
it explained. 

Yours very truly, 

GEOEGE H. KE^^DALL." 

(State's Exhibit 15, page 99 of Record.) 

Senator Stilwell denies that he received such a letter. (Pages 
67-69 of Record.) 

Kendall testified in reference to the letter that he kept a letter 
press book for copying letters; that a copy of the letter in ques- 
tion Avas made on March 29, 1913 ; that the copy was made by 
Miss Allen, his stenographer. He mailed the letter on the 29th 
by depositing it himself in a street box diagonally across the cor- 



534 

ner from his office ; it was postpaid and in an envelope addressed, 
" Senator Stephen J. Stilwell, Capitol, Albany, I^. Y.,'' and such 
letter has not been returned to him. (Kendall's testimony, pages 
67-71.) 

Miss Allen, Kendall's stenographer, testified in reference to 
this letter, that she took from dictation of Mr. Field the letter in 
question on March 29th; that after writing it on the machine she 
gave it to Mr. Field, who gave it to Mr. Kendall; she copied it 
in the letter book and the copy on page 55 of the letter press 
book is a copy of the letter which she wrote on her machine ; that 
the signature in the letter press copy of Kendall is Mr. Kendall's 
signature. The original letter press book was put in evidence 
and marked State's Exhibit 15. (Miss Allen's testimony, 90--100). 

General Statement of Facts. 

It is conceded by Kendall that he never had any communica- 
tion with any member of the Codes Committee of the Senate or 
Assembly except Senator Stilwell. (Kendall's testimony, p. 130.) 

It is conceded by Kendall that no other member of the Codes 
Committee of the Senate or Assembly knew of any of the trans- 
actions or conversations had with Senator Stilwell. (Kendall's 
testimony, page 130.) 

It is conceded by Kendall that he knew of no act, statement 
or conversation of any other member of the Codes Committee of 
the Senate or Assembly which gave him the slightest impression 
or idea that any other member of the Senate or Assembly Codes 
Committee knew of any of the transactions or conversations that 
he testified he had with Senator Stilwell. (Kendall's testimony, 
page 131.) 

Senator Stilwell concedes the same thing in regard to his 
knowledge and in regard to his transactions and conversations 
with Kendall. (Senator Stilwell's testimony, pages 441, 450 
and 456). 



535 



AFTER RECESS, 2 O'CLOCK P. M. 

Ix Senate, Albany, ]^. Y., April 16, 1913. 

The President. — The Senate will come to order. The Clerk 
will read the resolution under which this special order of business 
will proceed. 

The Clerk (reading). — ^'Resolved, That the report of the 
Judiciary Committee, to which was referred the resolution of 
April 3, 1913, the matter of the investigation demanded by 
Senator Stephen J. S til well relative to certain charges made 
against him by George H. Kendall, be received and that the state- 
ment of facts submitted therewith be forthwith printed and 
placed upon the desks of the Senators; and be it further 

'^ Resolved, That the final consideration of said matter be made 
a special order for Tuesday, April 15, 1913, at 2 o'clock in the 
afternoon, at which time counsel for the Senator from the Twenty- 
first shall make final argument in his behalf followed by final 
argument of Hon. Thomas Carmody, Attorney-General ; that such 
final argument be limited to a period of one and one-half hours 
for each counsel; and that upon the completion thereof the ques- 
tions set forth in the resolution of the Senate of April 3, 1913, 
be put and a vote taken thereon in accordance with the provisions 
of said resolution." 

The President. — One hour and a half is now allotted to the 
attorneys for the Senator from the Twenty-first to present their 
side of the case. 

Mr. Byrne : Mr. President and Senators. — I would at this 
time make a request that in the event that there are questions 
arising vdiich will necessitate an answer upon our part, that we 
be allowed fifteen minutes at the close of the argument of the 
Attorney-General for such statements as we deem essential or 
necessary, and that the same opportunity be allotted to the 
Attorney-General in the event that he feels that it is necessary 
to answer any of the statements made by us. 

The President. — The attorney for the Senator from the 
Twenty-first asks that fifteen minutes rebuttal be allowed each 
side if so desired. If there are no objections the request will be 
2;ranted. 



536 

Mr. Byrne. — Gentlemen of the Senate : It will be my purpose 
and object in this argimient before you to present as succinctly as 
possible what we deem to be the essential elements in this case, 
and present them opening with the first testimony taken and fin- 
ishing with the last testimony, and then a resume of all the testi- 
mony. We sincerely hope that that may in itself properly present 
to you ev.ery element in this case that will be called for in your 
consideration in your vote upon this question. 

I call the Senators' attention first to page 15, and I would ask 
that each Senator follow me as closely as possible so that the 
skeleton of my argument may remain with you. On page 15, 
near the bottom of the page, I would call your attention to — with 
the line beginning with ^'And it must be a small matter." This is 
in the testimony of Kendall (reading) : 

'^ I said, ' Oh, no.' And he said, ' I haven't time to attend to 
it now.' He said, ^ What is the siz)e of your concern V ' Oh,' I 
said, ' we ow^n our own real estate in the heart of the city and we 
have a handsome surplus in cash and we have a very large plant, 
and he seemed more interested." 

Now, gentlemen of the Senate, I call that to your attention for 
the purpose of allowing you to draw your inference as to what 
he intended by that statement. I draw it to your attention for 
the purpose of showing what there was in this man's mind at the 
time that he so testified, so that you may have reason to understand 
what the real man Kendall was when he intended by that state- 
ment to show that Senator Stilwell, from his statement that they 
had real estate in the center of the city and was a large concern, 
immediately took upon himself a desire, or an inclination at least, 
to dive deeper into his financial standing. 

I now call your attention to page 16, at the bottom of the page 
(reading) : 

'^ Q. Now, is that all that you recall that occurred at that time ? 
A. All I recall at the present moment. I was with him perhaps 
a half an hour." 

Now, I ask you, gentlemen of the 'Senate, whether or not Senator 
Stilwell, as the testimony shows undisputed, standing in his room 
with his hat and coat on, and the stenographer in his office, ready 
to leave to take the Empire State Express leaving this city at seven 
o'clock, whether or not Senator Stilwell would have stood in the 
room for one-half hour, standing at the table in his room listening 



537 

to a mere dissertation or conversation from this man when every 
minnte meant to him perhaps the loss of his train? I want to 
show that this man's mind was not working — only along such 
lines as can lead him as well as lead you from all his testimony 
to the complete inference that this conversation was an important 
one. This is the conversation of the 13th of February, the first 
time that this man came to the city with his cousin Field and 
went to the Senate Codes Committee room. 

I now call to your attention pages 20 and 21, near the top of 
page 20 (reading) : 

" Q. With whom was that made I A. Mr. Stilwell. 

" Q. State what was said about that ? A. He said that my 
narrative regarding my affairs had a bearing on the propriety of 
making the exchange — of forcing the exchange to incorporate, 
and would I come up and speak on the Governor's bill which was 
to take place on the 26th of February." 

You will remember, as I will show you later on in the argument, 
that this man Kendall sent a letter which letter requested that his 
name be placed upon the list. And as to whether or not Senator 
Stilwell was the correct person to send this request to. I will call 
that to your attention later. But he spoke at that time, he claims, 
of the incorporation bill. 

K'ow, I show you down below, near the bottom of the page, or 
about half way up, the question beginning (reading) : 

" Q. I suggest that you refrain from narrating the conversation 
on any other bill but yours or in relation to any other transaction 
than the one we are investigating. A. There was none, except 
he asked me to write him a letter for formality's sake, to appear ; 
there was no conversation." 

Xow, I ask you, Would Senator Stilwell ask the man to write him 
a letter for formality's sake and would this man have then writ- 
ten him that letter and asked him if he was the one to send it to ? 
On page 21 I show you with reference to this letter (reading) : 
''Attorney-General Carmody — February 20, 1913." 

The letter. This is the letter I referred to a moment ago. 

" Honorable Stephen J. Stilwell, State Capitol, Albany, 'N. Y. 
My dear sir. — I wish to be heard in favor of the bill requiring 
the New York Stock Exchange to incorporate at the hearing on 
February 26th. I formally apply to be put on the list of 
speakers. If this application is not properly addressed to you, 



538 

will you kindly inform me to wliom I should write. Very truly 
yours, George H.- Kendall." 

Now, don't you see from that what that has within itself? The 
regularity of his mind, when he says that he was requested to 
come here under his testimony, and then that he wrote this letter 
and aske.d Senator Stilwell to tell him whether his application 
was properly addressed to him, and if not, would he inform him 
to whom to write. 

I now call your attention to page 22, at the bottom of the page, 
in that paragraph beginning ''After the ending of the lunch " 
down to ''I will send for Mr. Lewis, the man you are to make 
out the check to, and introduce you to him." That testimony is 
of the meeting in this chamber when he said that he would intro- 
duce him and send for Mr. Lewis. I want you to take from that 
just exactly what this man inferred when he made that statement, 
that Senator Stilwell was going to send for the man that he was 
to send this check to, and for no other purpose; that they were 
not to talk about this bill, but mereh^ to meet this man Lewis for 
the purpose of knowing who the man was that he was to send the 
check to. 

I now call your attention to page 25, near the top of the page 
(reading) : 

'' Q. At the time w^hen you met Senator Stilwell and up to 
this point in the narrative, was there before you a copy of a bill 
or a draft of a bill, such as you wanted to protect your company ? 
A. 1^0, sir. 

'' Q. Did you bring any with you to Albany ? A. I did. 

'' Q. On the 26th ? A. Three — four. 

" Q. You brought four ? A. Yes, sir, four. One drafted by 
myself, one drafted by Mr. Lyon, one drafted by Mr. Field, and 
a composite bill of the three, and I think there was one I got 
somebody else to draft. 

'' Q. You had a bill drafted by Mr. Lyon, your attorney? 
A. Yes, sir ; one by myself, one by Mr. Field and — " 
'Now, I ask you, gentlemen of this Senate, if any of those bills 
that he claims that he brought here with him were eyer introduced 
into this testimony? Whether any of those bills were eyer pre- 
sented ? If any of them, which he said were the acts of himself, 
Mr. Lyon, Mr. Field and the composite form, were eyer presented 
here for joxiv consideration ; whether we eyer saw them or whether 
we eyer had them ? 



539 

At the bottom of that page (reading) : 

^' Q. J^ow, have you stated all that occurred after you met Mr. 
Lewis, and before Mr. Lewis and Mr. Field took their departure 
— all that jou recall ? A. All 1 can recall at the moment. 

" Q. Was there anything said about a check in Mr. Lewis' 
presence ? A. He said that before Mr. Lewis came up." 

Li other words, he was checking himself so that there wouldn't 
be any questioii but what the statement was between himself and 
Senator Stilwell, and they alone. 

I now call your attention to pages 26 and 27 (reading) : 

" Q. What was said on the subject of the check, was said before 
you were introduced to Lewis ? A. Yes, sir. 

^^ Q. That is, — as you have testified ? A. Whether it is or not, 
that is a fact. 

" Mr. Wilson.— That was on the 19th. 

^^ The Witness. — 'No, sir. 

'^ Q. The 26th was the date when you met Lewis and the first 
date that you met Lewis ? A. Yes, sir." 

Xow, nothing was said about the check on the 19th; nothing what- 
soever ; and yet, gentlemen of the Senate, you will remember from 
the testimony that he said that they had met on the 19th of Feb- 
ruary, that they had walked out into the corridor and that they 
were out there for a half hour, and that this was the time there 
was a meeting of the Senate Codes Committee in which they took 
up what was kno^\ai as the bill relating to the moving pictures ; 
and that he got up from the committee and that he walked up and 
down the hall and that then Senator Stilwell asked him for five 
hundred dollars and that he afterward came do^vn to two hundred 
and fifty, and that then he said, '' You can pay this check to a 
man that I knoAv of, a man who can draft this bill, or a man who 
will do the drafting, and you pay the check to a man named 
Lewis." And yet he said that nothing was said about the check on 
the 19th, on the 26th. 

Question, at the bottom of the page (reading) : 
" Q. Did you afterwards address a communication to Lewis 
from New York? A. Oh, yes, sir; I had forgotten that. I 
promised to Senator Stilwell that I would send him a check as 
soon as I a'ot back." 



540 

I^ow, gentlemen of the Senate, do you believe that this man 
Kendall was telling the truth, — as I will show you by the letter 
addressed to this man Lewis — when he said that he had promised 
Senator Stilwell that he would send him a check? Can't you 
see the mental workings of this man from that very answer and 
that very question ? 

]^ow, at the top of page 2Y (reading) : 

'' Q. Do you remember the date ? A. The 27th of February, 
this year. 

" Q. From Avhom did you get the address of Mr. Lewis ? A. 
Why, Mr. Stilwell." 

Do you Senators remember, who were present in that room and 
heard the testimony, that they got the address of Lewis from 
Lewis himself upon his very card? You remember that he said 
under cross-examination that he got the address of this man 
Lewis as revision clerk of the Capitol at Albany and 299 Broad- 
w^ay, ^TsTew York City, as his office address. I am drawing these 
things to your attention to show the mental condition of this man 
as well as the malice that enters into almost every answer. 

I now call your attention to page 28, very near the top of the 
page (reading) : 

'^Attorney-General Carmody. — You must try. 

'' The Witness. — Let me stand up then. 

'^ittorney-General Carmody. — I do not care how you do it. 

'^ Q. Mr. E. G. Allen, who signed that check, is treasurer of 
the ^ew York Bank IsTote Company ? A. Yes, sir." 
At the bottom or near the bottom of page 27 I would call your 
attention to question (reading) : 

'' Q. By whom is that signed ? A. E. G. Allen. 

'' Q. Who is E. G. Allen ? A. The treasurer ; he signs all the 
checks." 
ISTow, I call your attention to the top of page 2i8 (reading) : 

'^ Q. Mr. E. G. Allen, who signed that check, is treasurer of 
the New York Bank I^ote Company ? A. Yes, sir. 

'' Q. Is that check paid ? A. Yes, sir." 

ll^ow, as a matter of fact, gentlemen of the Senate, you know 
from the testimony here that E. G. Allen was a lady stenographer 
in his office, that she was treasurer of his company; but at this 



541 

stage of the proceeding she had not been sworn; there Avas no 
evidence bnt what at that time the treasurer of this company 
and the person who signed this check or paid this check was a 
man; and he deliberately stated that the treasurer was a man, 
and I call your attention to that testimony. 

Xow, I call your attention to page 30, at the top of the page 
(reading) : 

" March 3, 1913. 
" Hon. Stephen J. Stilwell, Albany, X. Y. 

"My dear sir : Will you kindly have a copy of our act sent to 
me. Mr. Lewis promised the day I was in Albany to send me 
one, and I wrote him on the 2Tth, making the same request, to 
neither of which has he responded." 

Xow, doesn't that show you that there was communication, and 
much of it, between Kendall and Lewis ? In other words, that 
Lewis had promised Kendall that he would send copies, and this 
man sends a letter to Senator Stilwell asking him to send copies. 
Xow, the idea is that this man Kendall simply wanted to hold the 
promise in to Senator Stilwell. 

Xow, I will call your attention to what Senator Griffin asked 
at about the middle of that page (reading) : 

" Q. These questions Senator Griffin desires to have you 
answer : In your letter to Mr. Lewis, accompanying the check, 
you say, ' Enclosed please find check for $250, as per my. promise 
of yesterday.' What promise did you refer to ?" 

I want all the Senators to read that so that they will know just 
what was in Senator Griffin's mind at the time. 

(Reading) "A. What I said just before. 

" Q. State what you referred to. A. Just as I testified before, 
that I promised Senator Stilwell to mail the check next day, which 
would be the 27th." 

Xow, is that an answer to that question ? Did he answer the 
Senator when he asked him why he was talking about the promise 
made to Lewis on the day previous ? 

(Eeading) " I having been up here to the stock exchange incor- 
poration bill on the 26th." 

That was absolutely no answer, an evasion, and unquestionably 
an attempt at a roundabout way of answering the question of 
the Senator and not clear, attempting to make it appear that he 



542 

had absolutely no conversation with Lewis before that but that 
all his conversations were with Senator Stilwell. 

jN'ow, at the bottom of page 31, the letter (reading) : 
'' Mr. Samuel Lewis, Jr., Senate Revision Clerk, Albany, E". Y. 

'^ My dear sir: Enclosed please find check for $250 as per my 
promise of yesterday. Yours very truly, George H. Kendall." 

E'ow, can you readily understand that there was communication 
between Stilwell — and also (reading): 

'' P. S. Please send me a copy of the act drawn yesterday and 
inform me if it was introduced today." 

It will show you that there was a conversation at that time, or the 
day previous between Senator Stilwell, Lewis and Kendall and 
Field. That was on the 26th; that was the day that we will show 
you that logically, as has been testified here, they went to the 
Senate restaurant and that they had the conversation regarding 
the payment of this money. They have strenuously denied that 
they ever went on that particular day, the 26th of February, to the 
Senate restaurant. You will remember that this man Field said 
that he had lunched on that day at the Ten Eyck, that Senator 
Stilwell and Mr. Kendall had lunched at the restaurant and that 
Lewis w^as not present. But I think that you will be able to 
adduce from all the statements here that they had this luncheon 
upon that day and that the conversations as testified to by Senator 
Stilwell and Lewis took place in the Senate restaurant on the 
26th of February. 

I now call your attention to page 35, at about the middle of 
the page (reading) : 

'' Q. Look it over and be sure of it. Was that bill introduced 
and printed in that form and discussed by you and Senator Stil- 
well on March 19th ? A. It was, sir. 

^^ Q. Tell what you said about it? A. Why, the Senator said 
that a bill which carried a penalty of a misdemeanor could not 
be enforced by a suit by a private party, and that he would have 
to look the matter up and see — that he would look the matter up 
and see if there could not be a way that an amendment could be 
devised by which any party aggrieved could bring suit under the 
bill as amended." 

I^ow, in that particular respect Kendall corroborates Senator Stil- 
well regarding that amendment. He had denied that there was 



543 

anything said about an amendment, but that he introduced the 
amendment into the original bill or copy of a bill sent to him to 
'New York City. 

I now call your attention to page 37. I call your attention to 
the letter of March 21st (reading) : 

" George H. Kendall, 71 Sixth avenue, New York City. 

'^ Dear Sir: After speaking to you the other day about a civil 
suit, I looked up the law bearing on the matter and am convinced 
it can be accomplished by adding a section, which I have added 
to the enclosed bill.'' 

ISTow, the following line is perhaps one of the most important lines 
that has been injected into this entire case, and I want you to 
deliberate upon it most seriously. 

(Reading) '' I will be at my office, 2G1 Broadway, Monday next 
at 3 p. M. if you desire to see me about brief. Respectfully yours, 
S. J. Stilwell." 

"About brief;" the '' a " was in there, and you will remember 
by motion the " a " was stricken out. 

I^ow, I am going to call the Senators' attention at this time to 
page 270, because would seem to be the logical manner to attract 
your attention to what would be considered a distinction or a dis- 
pute of that testimony. At the top of page 270. March 20, 1913. 
Now don't forgetj gentlemen of the Senate, that this is the 20th 
of March. 

" Senator S. J. Stilwell, Albany, :N'ew York. 

''Am informed Milburn put in brief last night. If so, would 
be unfair to me if I did not have an opportunity to read an 
answer. Will you loan me your copy or mail for one day. George 
H. Kendall." 

Now, gentlemen, you can readily understand that at that time, 
when he testified on page 27 that he did not have in mind this 
telegram that had been sent by himself on the 20th of March 
regarding this brief, if he had had that in mind he could not 
have made the error or the mistake that he made when he said 
that upon entering the office of Senator Stilwell, at 261 Broadway, 
JSTew York City, the first thing that was said was '' There is no 
brief, or I said there is no brief, or he said there is 
no brief." What did he mean by that? He meant that 
the word " brief " was a come-on, that the word '^ brief " 
was an illusion to somethina^ other than what the word itself 



544 

is defined as. And when he stated that they said in that room 
the first thing '' There is no brief/' I ask you gentlemen if 
it is possible that you can allow your imaginations to go so far 
that you will say that the introduction to a conversation could 
possibly encompass any such expression, when that expression 
grew out of the mind of a man who desired to bind and throttle 
a Senator in this House so that he would be led into the trap that 
he had set for this man; that he had sent for this man as a 
quarry; that he had brought him there for the purpose of ex- 
torting from him money, and that there was no reason or object 
for his going there. I call your attention to that and ask that 
you give it your sincere attention. 

Now, gentlemen, notwithstanding the fact that he had been 
denying to the judiciary committee absolutely that there was any- 
thing regarding a brief, that there was a single word, or a letter 
or a communication of any kind, and he had vigorously denied it ; 
notwithstanding that on page 270 you see the letter which of itself 
demonstrates mathematically that they had a communication 
regarding a brief, and that in the letter of the 21st, in which letter 
there v/as enclosed a copy of bill 1188 with an addenda regarding 
a civil remedy to be attached to this bill, there was also the 
reference to brief ; and Senator Stilwell had received this telegram 
in this chamber on the 20th and on the 21st he left for I^ew York 
and before leaving wrote the letter which I have read you here. 
Could there be any better conviction brought to your attention 
that this man Kendall v/as of himself attempting, absolutely 
attempting to draw over your eyes every scale that would keep 
out the light of truth? 

I now call your attention to pages 38 and 39 (reading) : 

'^ Q. Did you call on Senator Stilwell after receiving that 
letter? A. I did. 

" Q. When did you call on him ? A. The ensuing Monday. 

" Q. You called on Stillwell where? A. 261 Broadway. 

" Q. That is his place of business ? A. Yes, sir. 

" Q. That was on M-onday ? A. Yes, sir. 

^' Q. 261 Broadway, that is the address given in his letter to 
you of March 21st? A. May I know the date of that letter? 

" Q. March 21, 1913? A. Yes, sir. 

" Q. You are sure you called on him Monday following the 
21st of March? A. Yes, sir. 

" Q. What time did you see him ? A. Three o'clock. 



545 

" Q. That is on the Monday following the 21st? A. Yes, sir. 

" Q. At about three o'clock in the afternoon ? A. Yes, sir. 

^' Q. What took place between yon ? A. I met him as I was 
entering the street door, went with him in the elevator to his 
place of business. We entered his private office and he shut the 
door and I said to him, ' There is no brief,' and he said, ' I know 
that.' " 

^ow, is it possible that he can get away from that testimony ? 

Is it ptossible that he can offer any excuse for that statement in 

view of what I have read you regarding his telegram of the 20th 

of March ? 

^ow, over on the other page, on pages 39 and 38 (reading) : 
" Mv. Wilson. — We do not get his language, whether he said 

^ there is no brief,' or ' this is no brief.' 

^' Attorney-General Carmody. — ' There is no brief ' he said. 

" The Witness. — I am a little doubtful in my mind whether I 
said ' There is no brief,' or he said ' There is no brief.' One or 
the other of us said 'There is no brief,' and he replied after that, 
I don't know which said it. 

" Mr. Wilson. — Suppose he waits until he recalls whether — 

" Attorney-General Carmody. — I suggest coimsel waits until 
the witness gets a chance to state. 

'^ The Chairman. — Let the witness state it in his own way. 

" Do you now recall whether you stated ' There is no brief,' or 
whether Senator Stilwell stated ' There is no brief ? " A. I do 
not. 

'^Q. Whoever said it, was that the beginning of the conversa- 
tion A. That was the beginning of the conversation." 

^ow, I call your attention to that part of the question about 
one-third down, begimiing " INTow proceed." I call your attention 
to that line (reading) : 

" I said I realized that by the fact that there was no brief." 

He absolutely rivets himself to that statement that there was no 
brief, that he had never said anything about a brief, and yet we 
present to you his telegram of the 20th. 

I now call your attention to page 42 ; this is relative to the 
telegram of March 25th, page 43 (reading) : 



546 

" Mr. Wilson. — Just a moment. I would like to have it appear 
that it also shows upon it ' Charge it to the Clerk of the Senate,' 
and it says ' Charged ' and also the date when it Avas sent. That 
is the time J the hour." 

JSTow, you will remember that this telegram '' fifteen is the cor- 
rect number " was made a public charge, that the telegram was 
sent to the clerk and charged as a public document or a public 
charge. We call that to your attention as one fact that there was 
behind this telegram absolutely nothing that was improper, abso- 
lutely nothing that was in any sense a reflection upon Senator 
Stilwell. 

I now call your attention to page 47. Upon that page we first 
come to what is known as the unsigned or anonymous telegram. 
There has been a telegram wdiich has not been traced to Senator 
Stilwell, w^hich for whatever it has been v/orth, was introduced 
into and accepted as evidence. That telegram is the one that is 
knoAvn as '^ Five for the thing as law seems to me better than 
present uncertainties." That telegram has been traced to the rail 
of this Senate; that telegram has been brought here for the pur- 
pose of consecutively connecting or corroborating the telephone 
message by Senator Stilwell to Kendall at E'ew York C'ity. 

I now call your attention to page 5G. On that page you will 
notice that he said that over the telephone that he had threatened 
Senator Stilwell that if Senator Stilwell did not do what he de- 
manded of him, that there would be a telegram sent out to all 
the legislators and to the Governor^ and that under that penalty 
certain things were done. 

I now call your attention to page 58, and this is particularly 
important (reading) : 

" Senator Griffin. — At this point I would like to ask a question. 

" By Senator Griffin : 

'^ Q. Was this memorandum he speaks of taken in shorthand 
or longhand? A. He writes aboui:, half of both. He studied 
stenography at one time. He does not write it out in full. 

" Mr. Byrne. — I object to that answer. 

'' The Witness. — He studied years ago stenography, not a good 
stenographer. Cannot depend on him." 

!N"ow, perhaps in this case, Mr. President and gentlemen of this 
Senate, there is nothing that is more particularly pertinent to 



54Y 

this issue than that particular statement made hy this man 
Kendall. That this conversation on the 26th of March, which 
conversation started at 11 :12, or 11 :17 to he exact, and which 
continued for twelve or thirteen minutes, as the ticket shows^ that 
in this conversation he had every word of that conversation was 
taken down in longhand by this man Field. And I am going to 
ask the Attorney-General to allow me to take that original mem- 
orandum of that telephone communication. 

(Attornej^-General Carmody passes paper to Mr. Byrne.) 

'Now, we believe, and we have reason to argue here that the 
reason that Kendall said part of this memorandum was made by 
stenographic notes and part in longhand was that they wanted 
to avoid the possibility of producing or the necessity of producing 
this memorandimi. In other words, that it would not be ad- 
missible because he did not know stenography very well. But I 
have here in my hand four pages of paper, four sheets of paper 
upon which sheets there is written out in longhand by Field, as 
he has so sworn, dated March 26, 1913, a telephone communication 
between Senator Stilwell from 1513, the codes room, and the office 
of Kendall in New York City. This memorandum is written 
out in longhand with the exception of two or three words. This 
man Field took down in longhand, using his right hand to write 
vdth, his left hand to hold the receiver, every word of that com- 
munication over the telephone, m^erely putting in afterward S and 
K, K and S. And he took that down so deliberately and so ac- 
curately that he is able to read that into evidence, that he is 
able to use that as a memorandum and it was accepted by the 
committee as evidence and taken for everything it was worth on its 
face. E'ow, gentlemen, is it reasonable to believe and can't you 
see where the frame-up came in this case? Can't you see that 
this man deliberat'cly placed on that telephone in his office his 
second cousin and vice-president of this company for one purpose 
and one alone? He had in his employment an honest, upright 
and perfectly truthful girl by the name of Allen. That girl was 
an expert stenographer, so expert that she was able to read into 
evidence here every word that she took on a certain communication 
over the telephone on that day, later in the same day. And yet 
with a girl in his office who could have come here and put into 
testimony every word that Senator Stilwell said over the tele- 
phone, what does he do ? He does not allow her to get on the line. 



548 

They have five or six telephones interlinking communicating lines 
in the office, he had six peoj^le in the office. And yet he allowed 
this man Field to go on that line alone, and this man Field wrote 
out over the telephone by longhand such words as '' committee, 
assembly," the words '' brief, telegram, document, amount," every 
word practically written out in full, instead of writing '' c-o-m " 
for committee he v/rote c-o-m-m-i-t-t-e-e, wrote it all out. And 
yet he did not allow an honest girl, who could have taken that 
down in shorthand, to be on that line. AVhy? Because he did 
not dare. That girl would not have come to this Assembly and 
this Judiciary Committee and sworn to anything that was a lie. 
And because of that knowledge on his part of her rectitude, he 
had a man on there who was his second cousin, his alter ego and 
himself to enter into this conspiracy. 

Men of this Senate, if you can't see that with me, in the name 
of God what chance have I to stand here and ask you to pass 
upon the rights of a member of this Senate ? It is selfevident, 
mathematically true that this man Field could not have written 
that, nor any other human being on earth. There are over six 
hundred words, over six hundred words; and this telephone com- 
munication was broken up time and again because of some 
trouble on the line, and yet this man wrote down six hundred 
words in longhand, and these stenographers sitting here as experts 
could not take more than a hundred, a hundred and twenty-five 
or one hundred and fifty words a minute in shorthand. And he 
claims that those words were written in longhand. That, to us, 
seems to be the crux, the very establishment of the conspiracy in 
this case against this Senator. That seems to me to be the abso- 
lute monument that they have erected to dishonesty and dishonor. 
Because of their intense desire to put this man in jeopardy, they 
have framed too well, too well. They have oversworn themselves ; 
that is what it amounts to. 

I want to call your attention, under the suggestion of my asso- 
ciate, to the conversation where this girl Allen was on the tele- 
phone. You will remember that that was the third conversation 
of that day, the 4:35 conversation. She took a few words of the 
conversation, just a few, and then this man Kendall waved to her 
to get off the line. Would her being on that line have impeded 
that conversation ? E'o, but gentlemen of the Senate, this man 
did not want anybody on that line who was going to be truthful. 

E'ow, gentlemen, I call your attention, and I ask that in the 



649 

submission of this matter that every Senator in this chamber take 
those minutes that were taken down legibly by this man and go 
over them so that you may understand the importance of this 
conspiracy and to what depths they went to make it appear to be 
secure. I call your attention to page 63, at the bottom of the 
page (reading) : 

'^ Q. State all that you recall of that conversation on the 27th ? 
A. That is all that I can recall now. 

^' Q. Then I will ask you, see if I can refresh your recollection ; 
may I do so. I have asked him for all that occurred at that time. 
Was there a memorandum made of this conversation by anybody 
at that time ? A. Yes, sir. There were about five or six of these 
conservations that we had people listening at the telephones, and 
have a perfect memorandum of what was said.'' 

He swore there that they had people. As a matter of fact they 
had but one man, and that man was Field, the second cousin of this 
principal conspirator. 

I call your attention to page 66, at the bottom of the page 
(reading) : 

" Q. What day of the month ? A. I think that would be the 
29th, sir; I think so; but all my memory runs to the days of 
the week. 

'^ Q. That (indicating) is Senator Stilwell's signature, is it? 
A. That I don't know, sir, but it is the same as the others that I 
have received from him." 

ISTow, you will remember that he says that on the 29th of March 
he wrote a letter, a copy of which has been introduced into 
evidence and accepted, known as the alibi letter. That letter sets 
forth that there was no need of him writing this letter of the 27th 
which has been introduced into evidence as written by Senator 
Stilwell, that that was not an alibi and that he could not use it 
as such. And yet he says that he did not get this letter until the 
29th. Here is a letter that was written on the morning of the 
27th, and he claims, Kendall does, that he did not receive that 
letter until the 29 th, and upon that day that he wrote an alleged 
letter of which there is no evidence in this case that the original 
of that letter was ever received. 

I^ow, to show you that this conspirator would not allow any 
man or girl in his employment to prove up his letter; what does 
he swear to ? Here is a man that is president of the 'New York 



550 

Bank E'ote Company. This man says to prove that the letter was 
mailed, that he took this letter, that he went to the letter box 
diagonally opposite to their ofSce at 76 Sixth avenue and that he 
deposited that letter in that mail box. 'Now, what does that mean ? 
It means this: that there was a presumption that it had been 
delivered and that it had been received. Just another link in the 
chain of what he thought to be absolute evidence that would in- 
criminate Senator Stilwell. He did not allow his girl — and yet 
she swore that in the usual custom and course of business that at 
night she copied the letters off and that after they were copied 
they were put in envelopes and the stamps were placed on them, 
and that as she went home she sent those letters away. But here 
is a particular letter that he does not allow anybody else to testify 
to other than himself as to depositing it because he could safe- 
guard himself best by his own testimony. 

]^J'ow, gentlemen, I call your attention to page 77, the first letter 
received from Lewis, top of page 77 (reading) : 

" Mr. George H. Kendall. Dear Sir : Enclosed please find 
printed copies of Senate bill 1188. Of course it has not been 
introduced in the assembly. If you wish this done, please advise 
me and I will attend to the same. I may mention that I have not 
yet received your check for $250, as agreed. If you wish any- 
thing further in regards to this bill, please let me know. Yours 
truly, Samuel Lewis, Jr.'' 

Does that show that there was no inter-communication between 
these men, that Lewis was merely a misnomer, an outsider, a total 
stranger in the transactions between Senator Stilwell and this 
man Kendall ? Doesn't it prove that there was a contact or con- 
tract and a consideration working between Kendall and Lewis ? 
Absolutely. They could not have possibly had communications of 
this character without that being true. 

I now call your attention to the second last letter : '^ State of 
ISTew York, Senate Chamber," same page: 

"Albany, March 5, 1913. 
" Mr. George H. Kendall, ^ew York Bank I^ote Company. 

" Dear Sir : Received your check for $250 yesterday and thank 
you for same. Our letters must have crossed each other in the 
mail. Yours truly, Samuel Lewis, Jr." 

Another evidence of the communication that was going on between 
these men and their friendliness to one another. 



551 

I now call your attention to page 88, at the bottom of the page 
(reading) : 

^'Attorney-General Carmody. — IsTow, we have his admission over 
the telephone that the telegram was received. I think it must be 
regarded as having that effect. He said, ' What do you mean by 
sending me that telegram ? ' If that story is true, then that is an 
admission of the receipt of the telegram." 

'Now, gentlemen of the Senate, I want to call your attention to 
what is to my mind the second most important thing in this entire 
case outside of this faked-up, written out telephonic communica- 
tion by this man Field. On the 24th of March, 1913, Senator 
Stilwell has sworn and it has been introduced into evidence, a 
letter was received from Walter Taylor, of the firm of Carter, 
Ledyard & Milburn, the attorneys for the ISTew York Stock 
Exchange. That letter is reported and is in evidence at almost 
the close of these proceedings. That letter Avas received by Senator 
Stilwell, addressed on the 24th and received by him on the 25th. 
That letter — and a part of it was read over the telephone to this 
man Kendall, and Kendall at that time must have conceived the 
scheme of forcing this legislation across when he realized that the 
stock exchange, his thirty-four year enemy, was about to send 
forth the truth regarding this man Kendall. That letter is in 
evidence here and I will read that part of it that Senator Stilwell 
read on the telephone on that day. I will come to that in its 
logical procession. ISTow, I call your attention to page 90, at 
about the middle of the page (reading) : 

"Attorney-General Carmody. — New York, March 25, 1913. 
Stephen J. Stilwell, Senate Chamber, Albany, New York. Five 
for thing as law seems to me better than present uncertainties. 
Bears no signature. Signed ' ^o. sig. 2 :59 p. m. 

IN'ow, Kendall claims that in answer to that telegram sent by him, 
a telegram that was absolutely without any element of under- 
standing in it, unsigned by anyone, was delivered to the rail of 
this Senate and that is as far as it ever got in so far as the 
testimony here is concerned, that that was the cause for this call 
of 4:30 on the same day. But we show you by undisputed proof 
that that letter that was sent by Taylor to Senator Stilwell was 
received on the 25th, and that because of the assertions and allega- 
tions made in that letter, Senator Stilwell called this man up and 
read it over the 'phone to him because Kendall had asked the 



552 

Senator to keep him iu touch with the situation. The Senator 
read the part of that letter that was pertinent to the issues here, 
and on the 26th, the day following, or on the 25th to be exact, that 
afternoon, following that, Field and Kendall set up the stage 
work for this conspiracy and made it as complete as is possible for 
humans to make it under such conditions as exist in this case. 

I now call your attention. Senators, to page 99, that on the 
second — page 99, at the bottom of the page, is the letter, a copy 
of which was introduced into evidence and accepted as the letter, 
which was never proven to have been delivered and which Senator 
Stilwell has sworn that he never received. ISTow, I ask you, can't 
you understand that a man of this malicious character would have 
taken a letter of that kind and alleged that he had mailed it and 
that he sent it to him as part of the conspiracy to degrade this 
Senator ? Can't you realize that he would go to any extremity, 
this man who has for so many years been doing everything within 
his power to get favorable legislation for his alleged wrongs ? 
That letter is the letter which starts off '' Your alibi of the 27th 
received," and because of the shortness of time I will not go into 
that letter. There is no proof in this case that that letter was 
ever received, and we strenuously deny that that letter was 
properly received in evidence. But notwithstanding that, you 
have it before you, you have got to take into consideration all the 
surrounding circumstances, and it is for you to say what the 
probity of this man Kendall is. It is not for us to give you 
anything but the argument that attaches to each movement in this 
entire case. My associate suggests that this is a bare statement 
in favor of Kendall, that there was absolutely nothing in the letter 
which would call for a reply, that it was a part of the conspiracy 
and therefore is not of any weight in so far as this case is con- 
cerned; absolutely of no weight, a bare statement in favor of 
Kendall and against Senator Stilwell. 

I now call your attention to page 119, near the center of the 
page (reading) : 

^^ Mr. Wilson. — I don't care about it. You recalled what they 
said? A. They said if I made any damaging statements about 
them they would like to put in a brief, just as you say Mr. Stilwell 
said. 

" Q. You admit that is so ? A. That they said that ? 

" Q. Yes. A. Yes. There was considerable excitement over 
this. I will say what they said. They said if I made any damag- 



553 

ing statements about them that they wanted to be allowed to put 
in a brief on it, that is right." 

In other words, when there was a meeting in this room on the 
26th of February, a joint meeting of the Assembly and Senate 
Committees in hearing on the stock exchange incorporation — or 
known as the stock exchange bills ; at that time, as is introduced 
into evidence here, there was a statement made by Mr. Taylor, 
of the firm of Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, that if there was any- 
thing said by this man Kendall that was detrimental or injurious 
or that was of itself a lie, that they wanted an opportunity to 
present a brief. And he admits, in his testimony on page 119, 
that there was something said about a brief. That was that par- 
ticular time. But that is back on the 26th of February. 
]S[ow, we connect it up further by referring you to his telegram 
of March 20th, when he requested that he be afforded an oppor- 
tunity to reply to a brief that had been filed by Mr. Milbu.rn on 
the evening of the 19th of March, when there was a meeting of 
the Senate Codes Committee. And Milburn, instead of saying 
anything on the question of bill 1188, merely presented a brief, 
and that brief was in such form and has been introduced into 
evidence and is here as evidence, that a brief was submitted, and 
spoke for itself. In that brief there are allegations against the 
character of this man Kendall that makes it a public communica- 
tion, that sends it broadcast through the State, allegations against 
his honesty and veracity. And because of that brief which was 
then presented to the Senate Codes Committee at that hearing, on 
the 20th, a telegram is sent by Kendall, and that now is 
undisputed. 

I call your attention to page 123, at the bottom of the page 
(reading) : 

" Q. That is the first time you knew of how many there was, 
was it not ? A. Yes, sir. 

^^Attorney-General Carmody. — That is the Codes Committee; 
don't get mixed up. 

" The Witness. — Yes, sir. 

" Mr. Wilson. — 'Now, let us see. Perhaps you don't know." 

]^ow, on the next page, and this is an extremely important 
element in this case. 

" Attorney-General Carmody. — I do know. 



554 • 

" N^ow, once more, how many members of the Assembly Codes 
Committee were there ? A. I don't know, sir. I have this gentle- 
man's information. 

" Q. What did he tell you ? A. One minute. It may be 
accurate, it may be not, and then after I got through speaking 
before this committee that same day, the 19th, they asked me to 
come around and speak before them." 

Now, you will remember, gentlemen of the Senate, that almost 
on the last day of this hearing this man Kendall produced a book 
known as a directory of the Assembly and Senate Committees, 
that he alleged on that occasion that he received his book from 
Senator Stilwell in the Senate Codes room on the 13th of Febru- 
ary, that that book had two pages that were turned down ; that on 
those pages turned down there were the numbers and the names 
of the Assembly as well as the Senate Codes Committees. But 
I will show you, by his testimony here, that he never knew, and 
so swore, the number of members of the Assembly Codes Com- 
mittee; that he never knew, and yet he attempted to correct and 
make binding upon Senator Stilwell knowledge that he had alleged 
that he had on the lr3th of February, and yet he swore positively 
that he did not know then and did not knoAv now. 

At the middle of page 124, near the bottom, that is, below the 
center, I will read you this question. 

'^ Q. E"ow, I ask you, as a matter of fact if you knew down to 
that time, down to the 26th day or the 2Yth day of March, did 
you know how many members there were of the Assembly Com- 
mittee, the Codes Committee ? " 

N'ow, remember down to the 26th or the 2'7th of March. Don't 
lose sight of that. 

^'A. I never knew, sir; I don't know now." 

And he was testifying at that time, but a few days ago, in the 
Assembly parlor, ^ow, the answer below that, at the bottom of 
page 123 (reading) : 

'^Q. How many of the Assembly Judiciary Committee ? A. I 
haven't the slightest idea. Oh, the Assembly Judiciary, the 
Assembly ? 

Q. Yes. A. I don't know, except that Stilwell wrote me a letter 
the other day, saying there were thirteen instead of fifteen. 

Q. That is the first you knew of how many there was, was it 
not? A. Yes, sir." 



555 

jSToW; gentlemen of the Senate and Mr. President, can't you 
realize that this man who swore at the close of this hearing that 
on the 13th of February and thereafter he knew how many mem- 
bers there were in the Assembly Codes Committee, swears here 
under cross-examination that he never knew, didn't know then, 
and he had no knowledge whatsoever. Are you going to give 
faith or credence to that sort of a character who will swear in that 
manner? Isn't it undisputed and we have it in the testimony 
that he didn't know when he was testifying and never previously 
knew ? How much more strongly do you want me to send into 
your minds the absolute conviction of his depth of infamy when 
he claims later on in his testimony that he knew how many mem- 
bers there were, yet at this time he positively denied ever know- 
ing ? He claims that on the first day that the Senator met him, 
when the Senator was anxious to get a train, that he had given 
him this book setting forth the members of the committees, and 
that they read it on the train going to l^ew York and knew the 
number of the members on both committees. Is it logical to 
believe that this man would have had any necessity or reason for 
knowing the members of the Assembly Codes Committee or the 
Senate Codes Committee under those circumstances. They were 
merely coming here privately to start legislation, and that he 
claims that on that day, the l'3th of February, they had a perfect 
knowledge of how many members there were in both these com- 
mittees. 

I call your attention to page 147 (reading) : 

" Mr. Wilson. — Will the stenographer repeat the question to 
him once more ? 

^' The Witness. — I have never appeared before the Assembly 
Codes Committee. I know nothing about it." 

Page 151, at the bottom of the page (reading) : 

" Q. And you told the newspapers too, ' If necessary I will put 
a sign across my building or in front of the capitol at Albany? ' 
A. I am very sure, sir, those words never passed my mouth." 

Now, gentlemen of the Senate and members of the Judiciary 
Committee who heard the testimony, will you remember that in 
order — ■ bear with me for a moment — that Field testified that 
in this conversation over the telephone that he told Senator Stil- 
well that if necessary he would put a sign across the capitol at 
Albany ; and yet he, Kendall, thought at this time that he would 



556 

avoid tlie censure of the senators and the people present bj say- 
ing that he never made such a statement. I bring that out to 
show vou the malice, the feeling, the underlying motives of this 
man. He would do anything in the world not alone to arose pub- 
lic sentiment in his favor but to get what he sought in favor of 
his legislation. 

Page 158; top of the page (reading) : 

^^Attorney-General Carmody: I move to strike it out. 

'^ The Chairman. — ^o, proceed. 

^'Attorney-General Carmody. — May I hear that read again ? 

''The stenographer thereupon read the answer as follows: 'It 
is simply a member of his body that is as well known to you as 
I as a criminal.' 

" The Witness. — I did not make that answer. 

" Mr. Wilson. — The record stands as made, I take it. 

" The C'h airman. — Yes. 

" Senator Thomas. — Xote that he says he did not make that 
answer." 

I ask Senator Thomas if he does not remember the occasion upon 
which this statement was made, and he said that Senator Stilwell 
was well known as a criminal, and with that as an evidence of 
his mental condition, and that he bore upon that seriously, and 
Senator Thomas, after he had denied that he said it, said, " E^ote 
that he says that he didn't make that answer." 

Question in the middle, a little below the middle of the page 
(reading) : 

" Q. ' There are fifteen members of that and I cannot do any- 
thing there ? ' Did he say that to you ? A. I do not recollect." 

The testimony here is that on the 2;6th of March, 1913, in the 
first conversation over the telephone, the day following the send- 
ing of the telegram '' fifteen is the correct number," that in that 
conversation Senator 'Stilwell said " there are fifteen members of 
the Assembly Codes Committee and I don't know any of them 
vdth the exception of the chairman." 'Now he is attempting to 
deny, and yet he later on admitted that that was said. Field ad- 
mitted that that was said over the telephone, and he was attempt- 
ing to scjuirm and* get away from the fact merely because of his 
animus, and nothing else. 



557 

At the bottom of page 159 (reading) : 

'^ Urging him to report jonr bill out of the committee ? A. 
Urging him ? 

^^ Q. Threatening him ? A. Threatening him. 

" Q. Very well. Then he wrote to yon, ^ In the telegram I sent 
you I said the number of members of Assembly Codes Committee 
was fifteen. This is a mistake in the count. I find that the correct 
number is thirteen.' Is that right? A. 'No, sir, it is a lie. 

" Q. What is a lie ? A. That he ever said to me that the correct 
number of the committee is fifteen, that the number was fifteen. 
That is a lie." 

Yet I bring to your attention, gentlemen of this Senate, that this 
man admitted that over the telephone he said so, there were fif- 
teen. Field has admitted it. Can't that bear upon your mind 
the absolute untruthfulness and uncertainty of this man Kendall. 
I call your attention to page 160, near the center of the page 
f reading) : 

^' Q. Did you believe that there were fifteen ? A. You are 
speaking of the Assembly side ? 

" Q. Of the assembly, yes ? A. Yes." 
Xow, again he says that he believed that there were fifteen and 
there is his answer to that question. 

I now call your attention to page 162 ; it is page 163, at the top 
of the page (reading) : 

" The Witness: I think that the committee were all favorable 
to it anyway. That is my answer." 

In other words, attempting to equivocate and get away from us, 
having held him to the number of the committee. Because of the 
lack of knowledge of it he said that he believed the committee 
were in favor of it, and that it did not matter. That was his 
equivocation and his method of covering himself up. 
Now 1 call your attention to page 208 (reading) : 
" Q. On March 15th, 1913, did you cause this letter to be 
written to Mr. Samuel Lewis, Kevision Clerk, Albany, ^ew York ? 
" Dear Sir : — Mr. Kendall wishes to have a competent stenog- 
rapher who can take down his remarks before the Senate Codes 
Committee next Wednesday, and possibly one or two others. These 
he should want written out. If you can get someone who will do 
this for $25 we will be glad to have you do so. If you cannot, 
please let us know by wire early Tuesday." 



558 

'Now, on the 15tli of March, four days previous to the lOth, this 
man had written Field — had written to Lewis asking him to get 
a stenographer, that he would pay twenty-five dollars for the 
services of the stenographer, so that the minutes of the meeting 
before the Senate Codes Conunittee on the 19th could be taken 
down. E'ow, Kendall has sworn that he did not want those min- 
utes, that he didn't need them, and yet on the 15th Field wrote to 
Lewis and asked him to get a stenographer and he would pay 
twenty-five dollars for the services of that stenographer. 

Senator Stilwell swears that in his ofiice in New York City this 
man Kendall asked him for the number of the Assenibly Codes 
Committee, so that he could send to them copies of his argument 
before the Senate Codes, that he wanted to know the number so 
that he could send copies of the speech made by him before the 
Senate Codes Committee, he would not have an opportunity to go 
before the Assembly Codes Committee and he wanted them to know 
his side, the right side of the case and for that reason the only way 
that he could give them the right side was by sending them copies 
of the minutes. jSTow, that letter of the 15th is a conclusive argu- 
ment that they wanted these copies, they wanted a stenographer 
to take them, and whether or not they ever got thoise copies — 
they have denied getting them — but the fact is that they wanted 
them. His statement is in the testimony that he only ordered 
one. 

Now I call your attention to page 220. 

(To Attorney-General Carmody) May I have those pictures of 
these buildings? 

Attorney-General Carmody: I haven't them. 

Mr. Byrne: Now, Mr. President and members of the Senate, 
as an evidence of what this man's mental condition is and what he 
has been doing for a number of years to these people to do — what 
he wants them to do, I want to call your attention to the fact that 
there was introduced into evidence a set of pictures, five pictures, 
that were taken of his establishment with signs stretched across 
the front of it forty-seven feet long and twelve feet wide; each 
one of those signs had an inscription upon it, and I will read you 
the first (reading) : 

'' This plant has been practically idle eighteen years owing to 
the thieves of the New York Stock Exchange in not permitting the 
public to have stocks and bonds manufactured by anyone but the 



559 

engraving trust. We can get no redress. All we can do is to let 
the public know. Our instincts revolt at this way, but what would 
you do ? George H. Kendall." 

Picture N'o. 2 : 

'^ This plant would employ five hundred skilled workmen but 
for the thieves of the 'New York Stock Exchange who rob us by 
forcing our customers to go to the trust. George H. Kendall." 

Picture E'o. 3 : 

" Who assumes the responsibility for calling thieves those 
members of the ISTew York Stock Exchange who use their position 
in extorting from corporations the large sums that they might 
save here ? I do. George H. Kendall." 

Calling thieves eleven hundred men of the E^ew York Stock Ex- 
change among whose members there are some of the most reput- 
able and dignified and upright citizens in our entire country. It 
is a man of this mental condition that he dares placard his build- 
ing in the center of 'New York 'City with signs. That shows you 
his absolute fearlessness, his absolute desire to force upon people 
his wishes and his will. 

No. 4: 

^' Q. Won't you read that out loud ? A. ' The stock engraving 
monopoly exacts ten cents on every certificate transferred, while 
the identical same thing can be bought here for five cents. If the 
members of the exchange who take the difference by way of divi- 
dends are not thieves, please tell me what their status is. George 
H. Kendall' " 

^ow, in every one of these there is that same word '^ thief " or 
'' thieves." 

No. 5 : 

" Thieves of the l^ew York Stock Exchange. Yours is not 
petty larceny, but $5,000 a day that the corporations could save 
on their engraving bills, if you allowed them to buy here instead 
of your bank note trust. George H. Kendall." 

Placarding his building to get business, demanding that he get 
business, and calling eleven hundred men thieves irrespective of 
who they were. N'ow, in the World of February 13th there w^as a 



560 

picture printed of his building, and lie testified that upon that 
building there is today this very same sign. I will read that : 

'' Thieves of the E'ew York Stock Exchange. What could you 
expect when there is not a man there brave enough to come out for 
what he knows is right. Just what has hapened One thousand 
cowards stand by and see one hundred rascals rob the New York 
Bank Note -Company of thirty years' industry and the public 
grafted a hundred per cent, on their engraving bills. George H. 
Kendal." 

What does this mean if it doesn't mean that this man has it in 
his mind that everybody is a grafter and a thief? What did he 
say in answer to one of the Senators here regarding the very 
honorable bill drafting department of the State of New York? 
He said that he believed that the bill drafting department was 
corrupt because there was such men in this building as Stilwell, 
and later he isaid that unqualifiedly upon the request of one of 
the Senators in a case handed up to the Chairman. Do you mean 
to say that this man is a man worthy of credence, worthy of 
responsibility, deliberation and thought when he makes statements 
of this character and puts upon his building placards of that kind ? 

I call your attention to page 245, Mr. Samuel Lewis, at the 
top of the page (reading) : 

''March Tth, 1913. 
'' Mr. Samuel Lewis, 

Sencite Revision Clerh, 
Albany, N. Y. 

'' Dear Sik. — Referring to yours of the 3rd in which you state 
that the bill No. 1188 had not been introduced in the Assembly, 
would say that the newspapers report that Rep. Cuvillier did so 
introduce it. If this is not the case, please have it attended to 
at once. More important that this is that you write me im- 
mediately what the facts are. 

'' Very truly yours, 

'' GEORGE A. FIELD." 

Now, gentlemen, do you want more conclusive proof that there was 
a succession of events that tied together Kendall, Field and 
Lewis ? Do you believe now that there was absolutely no harmony 
between Kendall, Field and Lewis, that it was all between Senator 
Stilwell and Mr. Kendall? Would it be possible, after all these 
letters have been read to you, that there is any doubt in your mind 
regarding that? 



661 

I now call your attention to page 256. This is another question 
of veracity, a question that arose and Avas very thoroughly 
threshed out, near the bottom of the page: 

'^ Q. This was on the morning of the 26th? A. On the morn- 
ing of the 26th, yes, sir." 

Mr. Kendall had previously dictated a mem — this is Field's 
testimony — he dictated a memorandum. 

'^ Q. Mr. Kendall previously had dictated to me — he dictated 
a memorandum. 

'' Mr. Byrne. — I object to that. 

"■ Q. Stop right there. We don't want what it contains. Had 
previously dictated a memorandum. Did you have a memoran- 
dum while the conversation was going on? A. I did not; Mr. 
Kendall did." 

Now, Kendall has sworn here that he wrote this memorandmn 
or alleged telegram that he was going to send to the members of 
this House and the Assembly and to the Governor, and given out, 
to the newspapers, in his own handwriting, that he wrote it out, 
it was in writing, that he made five copies of it and that he had 
that with him. Field testified that Mr. Kendall dictated it and 
that he wrote it out and that Mr. Kendall had it on his desk when 
he was talking over the telephone in this alleged conversation 
that he had with Senator Stilwell on the 26th, the morning of the 
26th. 'Now, can't you see that these men in their deliberations had 
got mixed on their methods and what they had done. 

Mr. President and gentlemen of this Senate, if you disbelieve 
either of these men in one thing, you must absolutely, under the 
rule, prohibit yourself from allowing any of their testimony to 
be given credence, or to be responsible for anything that they say 
thereafter. 

I call your attention to page 258 (reading) : 

" Q. You saw it ? A. I wrote it myself." 

This is Field. 

" It is in my writing. 

^' Q. Have you a copy of it there ? A. Yes, I copied it off 
later. 

'^ Q. Will you please read it now. 

" Mr. Wilson. — How can this v/itness know what Mr. Kendall 
had when they were not in the same office ? 



562 

^^ Attorney-General Carniocly. — He heard them telephone. I 
want him to repeat." 

Now, in that piece of evidence he swears that he wrote it and that 
it was dictated to him by Mr. Kendall. 

Page 262. E"ow, this testimony of Field is to refer to what he 
did regarding his taking down of that telephone commmiication. 
I want you to follow this very closely because it will corroborate 
me in what I have stated regarding that written communication. 

" Q. Well, I wish you would state to the committee how fully 
you got that conversation in your notes? A. Almost nothing. 
What was omitted wais only some sparring back and forth. ' This 
Mr. Kendall ? ' Starting the telephone and possibly one or two 
replies that I didn't get." 

In other words he got it all. He clinched himself on that. And 
he wrote that all out in longhand, a communication taken over the 
telephone, whatever Kendall said on one end and the reply made 
by Senator Stilwell, whatever Stilwell said at one end and the 
reply made by Kiendall. He got every word, all of that. I re- 
spectfully submit that the Senators read all of that for their own 
satisfaction, and if there is any man in the room or any Senator 
who has had any experience in writing longhand can do what 
this man alleges he did, then there is absolutely no necessity for 
stenographers. 

I call your attention now to page 272, near the bottom of the 
page (reading) : 

^' Q. Have you read it once? A. ^Never read it once, only the 
committees that you turned dowm the pages to." 
IN^ow we are getting to that book which he says that Senator 
Stilwell gave him on the 13th of February. 

" Q. You have read the contents of it more than once ? A. 'No, 
sir, never once. 

^' Q. Have never read it once? A. Never read it once, only 
the committees that you turned down the pages to. 

" Q. When did you read it that once ? A. At that time. 

" Q. At what time ? A. Why the time when you gave it to me. 

Now, here he is going back on the stand correcting a big mistake 
that he made and he says that he read it once, that he read the 
committees, and he read only that part of the book, where the^ 
pages were turned down. Again he said in his testimony that 
although he had met Senator Stilwell a number of times, that 



563 

they liad never sat down and talked. The fact is admitted by 
him that they sat down and talked in the Senate restaurant on 
March 19th; they sat dowm and talked for half an hour in the 
Senate Codes Committee room on another occasion after the meet- 
ing of the 19 th, wdien the Senators suggested to him that he talk 
the matter of his legislation over with the chairman of the com- 
mittee, Senator Stilwell. And yet he is attempting to avoid 
having anything to do with Senator Stihvell that will give regu- 
larity to their conduct or give the appearance to Senator Stilwell 
of having done everything that was correct and upright. This 
man's mind works along those lines that prohibit the inclusion of 
everything that is honest or fair. 

Page 275, near the top of the page (reading) : 

" Q. E^ot members of Senate ? A. I don't know what's on the 
outside of it. Yes, you are wrong, sir. You turn inside and you 
will find both committees, committees of both sides of the House." 

This refers to the same book. 

'• Q. You know what is in it now? A. It comes back to me, 
having read it — hunted for the committee on two sides, whereas 
the caption of the book is one thing, the contents of the book is 
another." 

On the outside of this book there was something about Assembly 
directory, nothing said about the Senate. 
Down near the bottom of the page: 

'^ Q. 'No, but do you know how many are on that committee ? 
A. I think it is 13, sir. 

'^ Q. You think it is 13, but do you know^ that? A. If you 
will let me count up." 

Here he is claiming that he knew the number and now he asks 
that he be allowed to have the book so that he can count up the 
number. He has sworn that he knew the number ; he got the book 
on the 13th and he had read it over and knew the number, there- 
fore he wants to count up now. 

^' Q. No, no. I ask you if you knew ? A. I must have known. 
'' Q. Oh, you must have known ? A. Yes." 

Page 276 : 

'' Senator Thomas. — Yes, and I would like to have the second 
question asked now. 



664 

'' Q. Have yoii ever heard anytMng said, or seen anything 
written or heard or seen any hint, innuendo or suggestion that the 
State Bill Drafting Department was not only entirely worthy of 
the confidence of any citizen who might want a bill drawn on any 
subject whatever ? '' 

Senator Thomas and the other Senators will remember that 
matter. Then the witness — or Attorney-General Carmody : 
''Yes, that question is asked and it is a proper question. 

'' The Witness. — I think you will have to rest my case. I 
think my answer will hurt the rest of my case. 

''Attorney-General Carmody. — Please answer that question. 
Read it over and answer the question. 

" The Witness. — The answer, sir, is yes, so long as our Senators 
in Albany like Mr. Stilwell." 

You remember my allusion to it. I am bringing it to the attention 
of the Senators nov/ so that they may again digest it, so that 
they may understand this man's working of mind. 

"Attorney-General Carmody. — Wait a minute. You have not 
answered the question. The question calls for an answer yes or no. 

JSTow, I call your attention to the other page, page 277. 

" The Chairman. — I^ow, this is a question asked by the com- 
mittee, one of the members of the committee, for his own informa- 
tion, and the committee wants to hear the answer of the witness, 
and I think it will save time. Proceed. 

" The Witness. — As I understand, the question is, Is there in 
my mind cause for not having confidence in the Bill Drafting 
Department at Albany ; and I answer yes, there is cause for lack 
of confidence, so long as men like Mr. Lewis and Mr. Stilwell are 
here. That is my answer." 

'Now, in other words, this man, with a mind as large as a peanut, 
says that he believes that the Bill Drafting Department, and by 
innuendo, every other department in this entire building, is false 
to its trust and untrue to its oath, because there are men here 
like Senator Stilwell and Lewis, because he has got in his mind 
malice and revenge against those men. It that the sort of a man 
that you Senators are going to deal with as being -competent of 
telling the truth, and particularly elucidating those facts that 



565 

you want to gain for jour own knowledge in determining the 
issues here ? If that is the character of man that you are going 
to accept as a suitable and proper witness, then it is about time 
that we released all the laws and all the facts pertaining to 
evidence, and allowed everything in, whether a man's status is 
that of a sound mind or whether he is an absolute mental 
inebriate. 

Page 289, near the center of the page: 

'' By Attorney-General Carmody: 

^' Q. I want to show you exhibit lY. When did you first see 
that book? A. I saw that on February 13th the first time. 

'' Q. Where did you first see it ? A. When it was given to Mr. 
Kendall in the Codes room I believe. 

'' Q. By whom ? A. By Senator Stilwell. ' 

" Q. Who was present at the time ? A. Mr. Kendall, Mr. Stil- 
well and myself. I am not positive whether his stenographer was 
there at the time or not ; might have been. 

" Q. It was given by Mr. Stilwell to Kendall or to you ? A. I 
think it was actually handed to Mr. Kendall. 

^^ Q. You observed that a couple of pages were turned down ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

'^ Q. Were they turned down at the time when it was delivered 
to you or to him ? A. I wouldn't be able to swear so, no." 

ISTow, in other words, this man Kendall is in almost every essential 
and material point — there is an attempt to corroborate by Field, 
so that Field wanted to show that they got it upon that occasion. 

" Q. Did you see it afterward ? A. O, yes, it has been either 
on my desk or Mr. Kendall's desk. I think I had it most of the 
time since." 

And yet they did not produce that until the end, after Kendall 
had gone on his direct examination; they called Kendall back 
and he produces this book which they thought would connect up 
their story regarding the telegram '^ Fifteen is the correct num- 
ber." 

Page 292: 

^' Q. Upon this occasion you sa}^ that there was handed to Mr. 
Kendall a book, which has been exhibited here as exhibit 17 ? 
A. Yes, sir, I so testified. 

" Q. ^Yhere was that book taken from ? A. To the best of my 



566 

recollection, from a desk in what would be the left hand corner 
of the room, facing in the room." 

Now, he swore that Senator Stilwell went back and took this 
Assembly directory out of a desk in his room. They are attempt- 
ing to show positively where this came from. 

'Now, again I must call your attention to the fact that it is 
admitted that Senator Stilwell at that time was about to take a 
train ; he afterward took the 7 o'clock train and on this particular 
night he remembers distinctly what train it was he took because 
there was a wreck at Oscawanna and they were delayed in getting 
into New York city until 4 or 5 o'clock the following morning. 

At the bottom of page 293 (reading) : 

'' Q. How long did this conversation of the 13th take? A. 
About half an hour. 

'^ Q. You are positive about that ? A. No-, about I say. 

'' Q. What time of the day was this again ? Between half-past 
three and four, I should say, to be best of my recollection." 

And yet Senator Stilwell was going to catch the 7 o'clock train, 
had his hat and coat on, the stenographer had her hat and coat 
on, and he says between half-past three and four. I'Tow, gentle- 
men, can't you readily understand that their minds are not in 
any sense cohesive to this subject ? 

Page 294, at the bottom of the page (reading) : 
^' Q. When Senator Stilwell passed Mr. Kendall you say he 
beckoned him ? A. I didn't say so. I said I didn't see whether 
he beckoned to him or spoke to him or touched him." 

In other words, Lewis was close to Kendall. Kendall swore on 
his direct testimony that when Senator Stilwell left the Senate 
Codes room at the hearing on February 19th that he beckoned 
Kendall, Field saw him ; Field saw him beckon, and yet Field says 
that he doesn't know whether he beckoned to him, whether he 
touched him, or what he did ; close to him and yet he didn't see 
anything that happened there. I call that to your attention for 
the purpose of showing how much credit you can give to their 
memory upon these questions. 

Now, I am going to 'call your attention to page 305. This is 
regarding those telephone talks taken down by Field. Near the 
bottom of the page (reading) : 

'' Q. And you left a margin alongside of this paper for the 
purpose of putting those in ? A. For that very purpose exactly." 



567 

!N"ow, Senators, yon will notice that on this memoranda there 
is along the side a margin, and that margin was left there delib- 
erately by this man Field so that he conld put in S and K, 
K and S, S and K. Here is a conversation that is going on over 
the telephone on a very important matter; here is a man that is 
taking it down in longhand ; and yet he deliberately allows a 
margin to remain on the page so that he can put in K and S 
afterward. What does it show ? It shows that they have simply 
faked this thing np to satisfy themselves. 

The President calls my attention to the fact that my time is 
np. I would beg the indulgence of the Senate. I am just about 
three-quarters of the way, Mr. President, through my address. 
I would ask for twenty minutes more. 

The President. — The attorney asks twenty minutes more time. 
If there are no objections, the request will be granted. 

Mr. Byrne. — Page 306 — I am getting close to the end — at 
the bottom of the page (reading) : 

'^ Q. ]^ow, you went along throughout this entire conversation 
and with a very few exceptions you wrote out, for instance, the 
word '' coromittee," you spelled that out c-o-m-m-i-t-t-e-e correctly, 
didn't yon? A. It would appear so." 

This man wrote out all of the answers and all of the words in this 
conversation over the telephone, and he wrote such words as ^' com- 
mittee," a very difficult word to write even when one is not taking 
a telephone communication. 

Xear the top of page 307 (reading) : 

'^ Q. But in the main this was all written out in longhand? 
A. Yes, sir, exactly; Mr. Kendall was dictating very slowly for 
that very purpose." 

In other words, Mr. Kendall was dictating very slowly so that 
this man could write it all out in longhand. And you have got six 
or seven hundred words taken down in longhand which w^ere 
dictated very slowly in a conversation over the telephone that 
took, with the breaks and everything else, twelve or thirteen 
minutes. In other words, he was trying to check himself up. 
'Now, on page 309, top of the page : 

'^ Q. Did you say this : '' If we can get enough public opinion 
back of these men." 

Now, Senators, I want you to take this into mind very seriously. 



508 

In the iSew York World of February 13tli — introduced into 
evidence there is a statement alleged to have been made bj Mr. 
Field, and this is the statement: 

'' If we can get enough public opinion back of these men, so that 
thev will feel that coming out and declaring their real feelings 
the opposition to the monopoly will win out." 

There is the motive power behind all of this. They are seeking 
public opinion ; they are seeking enough votes so that they can 
push across legislation, so that they would get that which they 
have been seeking for thirty years ; and Field demonstrated that in 
the interview that he reported in the World when he said that if 
they could get public opinion behind them that would be all that 
they needed, and then the monopoly would be broken and they 
would win. 

Page 311 (reading) : 

" Q. You did not use any stenographic notes or signs — " 

This is Field's testimony. 

'' or characters of any kind on these things ? A. I have forgotten 
it entirely. I could not have done it to save my life. 

'^ Q. You did not do it ? A. I did not. I would not even have 
been able to transcribe it." 

You will remember that Kendall swore that he could take do^vn 
notes in shorthand or in longhand. 

" Q. And there were none of these conversations Avhich you 
heard Mr. Stilwell having with Mr. Kendall, with the exception 
of this one small fraction by anybody else in your office, heard 
by anybody else ? A. 'No, sir. 

^' Q. What was the size of your office force ? A. About five or 
six people." 

There they had ^ye or six persons in the office, and not one of 
them would they allow on the telephone. Good, faithful and true 
people, with the exception of Kendall and himself. 

" Q. Who are those ? A. Mr. Kendall, Miss Allen, Mr. Fisher, 
myself, and sometimes an office boy." 

The fact is they had Mr. Fisher, who testified to an immaterial 
matter; and they had this Allen girl, and yet they wouldn't allow 
either of those near the telephone. 



569 

'' Q. How many telephones have you in your office ? A. There 
are three in the main office, and a small switchboard, and one in 
Mr. Kendall's private office." 

^ow, if there were but two telephones, they could make an excuse 
on that; but they have got five telephones there. 

Page 314. 'Now, I want to call your attention to the fact on 
that page, and because my time is limited, I want to show that 
it is undisputed in this case that nobody heard Senator Stilwell 
say to Mr. Kendall that he wanted five hundred dollars, or that 
he wanted two hundred and fifty dollars, or that he wanted five 
hundred dollars apiece for four members of the Senate Codes 
Committee or fifteen hundred dollars for members of the Assembly 
Codes Committee. This conversation or these conversations were 
alone conversations between Kendall and Senator Stilwell; not. 
one of them, not a single one of those conversations have they got 
any corroboration to. And you remember, members of the Senate^ 
that this man Kendall was particeps criminis; you must under- 
stand that he was an accomplice from his testimony here, and 
unless every material element in his testimony is corroborated^ 
then their case as a matter of law falls and fails. 

I ask you to remember distinctly that there is absolutely no 
corroboration. 

Page 321, I call your attention to the testimony of Miss Allen 
(reading) : 

" Q. How did you know it was Senator Stilwell V 
^ow this is a very important thing; very, very important; and 
every Senator w^ho was present in the Assembly parlor will 
remember this distinctly. 

" Q. How did you know it was Senator Stilwell ? A. I heard 
him talking this morning and his voice sounded the same as it 
did over the 'phone." 

To show you that she knew he was talking, that was her testimony. 

" Q. Did you hear Senator Stilwell's name mentioned in that 
conversation over the 'phone? A. No, I didn't." 

Xow, gentlemen of the Senate, you remember that sad and 
pitiable sight that this virtuous and truthful girl made upon the 
stand when She was asked, on being called back to the stand, 
whether or not she had had a conversation with anybody in that 
room previous to her going on the stand and testifying ; and under 



570 

severe, but nevertheless gentlemanly, examination, slie said that 
she preferred not to answer. And I v^ill now show you and ask 
you to remember what Senator Foley said on page 324, by Senator 
Foley (reading) : 

^' Q. Did you have any difficulty taking those notes ? A. 'No, 
sir. 

" Q. As far as the speed or the voice was concerned ? A. No, 
sir.'' 

'' Q. Did you finish the dictation at the time the voice con- 
cluded that sentence, or did you have to write something later on, 
after you hung up ? A. No, I wrote it before I hung up the 
receiver. 

^' Q. Was it spoken very fast ? A. ISTot very. 

" Q. Could you have written it in longhand in the same time ? 
A. I don't think I could." 

There was an honest girl who could not have written what she 
accomplished — in writing in longhand, what she took down in 
shorthand. !N'ow, that is an evidence of her honesty. 
And I call your attention to page 335 (reading) : 

" Q. Did Mr. Kendall speak loud enough for you to hear him ? 
A. Yes, I heard what he said. 

" Q. Did you say to him this, or this in substance :" 

JSTow, this has to do entirely with what Kendall said to Miss Allen 
when she was seated in the Assembly parlor behind the rail. 

" If I say it was 'Senator Stilwell and they should ask me, '' How 
did you know it was Senator Stilwell '^ And did he say to you, 
^ Say, why I heard him talking this morning, and his voice 
sounded the same as it did over the 'phone.' " 

That question was put to her in a number of different ways. That 
little girl sat on the stand, and in the end, because of the kind 
ministrations of my associate, indicating to her her rights, ex- 
pounding to her what her privileges w^ere, she said on page 339 
(reading) : 

^'Attorney-General Carmody. — Will you answer that question ? 

" By Mr. Wilson. — Q. Are you willing to answer the question 
I asked you ? A. I would rather not." 

That answer to this day has never been given, and if the members 
of this Senate are going to believe a man of this character, who 



571 

would enter into a conspiracy to place on the record testimony 
that never existed, in other words, corrupt a witness, and make 
that witness do his beck and call because she was employed by 
him and w^as treasurer of his company ; if you are going to accept 
that man's statement as against the credibility of a member of 
this Senate, a brother member of this Senate, then I say in the 
name of God, may there come out of heaven a new exponent of 
truth, a new exponent of a proper method in determining what is 
false or what is untrue. 

There was a girl who didn't dare tell what had happened 
because she would have been degraded or incriminated by her 
answer. Her answer is on the record at page 346. That merely 
alludes to why Miss Allen did not take the talk. I want to call 
your attention to what he says of her. 

" Q. Has been in your employ eleven years ? A. Yes, sir. 

" Q. You would trust her anywhere ? A. Yes, sir. 

'^ Q. Then she having the 'phone and being a stenographer, why 
didn't you let her take that conversation stenographically ? A. I 
will tell you why. 

'' Q. You may tell. A. The girl is so timid that if I wanted to 
call her for the same testimony that I called Mr. Field — " 

Kemember and listen to this : 

'' the poor girl would be frightened to death and be made to say 
anything." 

Eemember if she took stenographic notes she would be made to 
say any thing although she has read her stenographic notes cor- 
rectly and truthfully. 

''And therefore I wanted a man of aplomb like Mr. Field. 
That's my answer." 

Xow^, gentlemen, I ask you as reasonable men, is that a reasonable 
answer, is that a correct answer for this man to make, that the 
girl, because she was timid, would not have been able to tell the 
truth on the stand, yet she testified, and was brought here to 
testify. 

Xow, gentlemen, I want to call to your attention, so that there 
will not be lacking here any of those elements that go into the 
main issues in this case, that Lewis has testified that he spoke to 
Kendall about the bill drafting department. This is the testi- 
nionv : 



572 

" Q. If so, state it. A. On the first occasion that I met Mr. 
Kendall he, immediately after Senator iStilwell left us, wanted to 
know whether I had drawn the bill, and I said yes, and I said to 
him, ' Mr. Kendall, why don't you have your own lawyers draw 
this bill V He said my own lawyers are not familiar with legis- 
lative matters, and I told Senator Stilwell that I preferred to 
have some one who was an expert in these matters. I said, ' Well, 
I am surprised that you did not go to the bill drafting depart- 
ment. Mr. Robert C. Cummings is the foremost bill drafter in 
this state and he drafted all the stock exchange bills.' He said, 
' That is the reason I did not wish to go there, because he drafted 
the stock exchange bills, and I was afraid to go there with this 
bill for fear that the stock exchange would get next to him and 
they would slip a joker in on me.' " 

Now, you can readily realize the mental state of this man. He 
did not want to go to the honorable, upright bill drafting depart- 
ment in this Capitol to get this bill 1188 drawn, because he is 
afraid all of those people down there in the stock exchange, that 
were diametrically opposed to him, controlled the bill drafting 
department, so that they would get in touch with the stock 
exchange and put a joker in this bill. That further shows the 
mental condition of this man. 

Page 443, the letter (reading) : 

^' Senator 8. J. Stilwell, Albany, N. Y, 

^'Am informed Milburn put in brief last night. If it would 
be in order for me to have an opportunity to write an answer, will 
you loan us your copy by mail for one day ? 

" GEORGE H. KEXDALL." 

ISTow, in reply to that came the letter of the 21st, in which 
there is a reference to the brief which I have already read to you. 
This is in Senator Stilwell's testimony. 

'Now, the telephone call which they testified was about 10 :30, 
was actually started at about 11:05, and Senator Stilwell was not 
located until twelve minutes afterwards, or at 11:17. l^ow, I 
want to call your attention to page 491. That is the page upon 
which there is copied into the minutes the letter of Carter, Led- 
yard & Milburn, addressed March 24th, to Honorable Stephen J. 
Stilwell. The Senators will remember what the testimony was 
Tegarding that letter. You will remember what was read over 



573 

the telephone. And in this particular letter there is every ele- 
ment that makes it pertinent to these issues, because they had 
requested that if there was anything sent in by Milbum or by 
the Stock Exchange people, that they be immediately put in 
touch with it. Senator Stilwell called them up upon the telephone 
and read the letter, part of which is this : 

'^ In his statement in regard to this list, Mr. Kendall has wil- 
fully sought to mislead and deceive the committee, and has shown 
himself to be without regard for truth, and unworthy of belief. 
For this reason I think it unnecessary to deal with any of the 
other allegations made by him. 

^' I submit that the reckless disregard for truth shown by Mr. 
Kendall proves that the exchange in refusing to put trust and 
confidence in a company under his management, showed good 
judgment and reached a sound conclusion. 
^' Yours truly, 

'' WALTER E. TAYLOR, 
'' Counsel for New York Stock Exchange/' 

ISTow, gentlemen of the Senate, because of the limitation of 
time, and there were over seventy odd hours of testimony taken, 
1,000 pages of typewritten testimony and over 500 hundred pages 
of this closely printed testimony, you can realize the difficulties 
under which we have worked; you can realize how we have been 
handicapped in placing before this honorable body all the facts 
that have been adduced. It is my duty as associate counsel, and 
I am indeed aware of my limitations, but it is my duty as asso- 
ciate counsel to bring to your attention the gravity of this situa- 
tion. I ask you men here under your oath and obligation to a 
fellow member, that you take into consideration on the one side 
all that has been testified to here by the main witnesses for the 
people ; in other words, in this investigation on the part of the 
people, Kendall and Field ; and I ask that you take into con- 
sideration the testimony of Miss Maeder and also of Senator 
Stilwell ; I ask you to recognize their appearance upon the stand 
and take that into consideration ; I ask you that you do everything 
within your power as learned men, as men of knowledge and 
intelligence, to view this situation impartially, I say impartially; 
and again I wish to bring to your attention that I believe in my 
heart and soul that there is no man in this House who will allow 
himself to be swayed in the determination of this matter by any 



574 

political expediency. If tliere is to be political expediency 
injected into this case, if you are going to rnin a man's character 
forever, if you are going to blot tbe future career of his wife and 
daughter, his mother and father, his brothers and sisters; if you 
are going to do these things based upon this testimony and upon 
this claim of facts, then indeed is it true that you might just as 
well pull in front of this Capitol — because a public accusation 
has been made against this man — and strike off his head figura- 
tively or literally into the basket of public opinion. 

I ask you with all the power that I have within my heart and 
soul in behalf of Senator Stilwell, a man that I in these few days 
have learned to love and respect, that you give every ounce of 
your influence, that you remember that 

Between the cradle and tomb two roadways lead along, 

Oft side by side they seem to glide, the right road and the wrong ; 

Each by-path winding in or out, however wide it strays, 

Leads forth or back from one main track, 

There are but these two ways. 

No guide post points the way to go, but deep within each soul, 

A knowledge dwells, a sense that tells the right road to the goal. 

It may seem desolate at first, but when the day slants west 

The road of right flows full of light. 

The highway of the blest. 

In the name of God, men of this Senate, brother members in 
this Senate with Senator Stilwell ; in the name of the great State 
of ISTew York and in the absolute protection of our Constitution 
and all that it means, I ask that you give your fervent and sincere 
attention to the facts produced in the record in this case. We 
are bound by those facts; allow no innuendo to sway you, and 
remember that this is your opportunity as a master of human 

destinies. 

Fame, love and fortune on my footsteps wait, 

Cities and fields I walk; I penetrate 

Deserts and seas remote, and passing by 

Hovel and mart and palace — soon or late 

I knock unbidden once at every gate! 

If sleeping, wake — if feasting, rise before 

I turn away. It is the hour of fate, 

And they who follow me reach every state 

Mortals desire^ and conquer every foe 

Save death; but those who doubt or hesitate, 

Condemned to failure, penury and woe. 

Seek me in vain and uselessly implore. 

I answ^er not, and I return no more! 



575 

Gentlemen, in the name of all the energy that is in my body ; 
in the name and integrity of my associate, and by my pledge to 
our client, I now cast into your hands for final determination 
the future or the end of Senator Stilwell. 

The President. — The Attorney-General has now one hour and 
fifty minutes to present his side of the case. 

Attorney-General Carmody: Mr. President and Senators: 
I had the honor of being invited by the Judiciary Committee 
to appear before that committee and submit such evidence as 
might be offered or as we might obtain bearing upon the charges 
filed by Kendall against Senator Stilwell. In that capacity, 
and in that capacity only, and with those motives and those feel- 
ings, that we attribute to a representative of an independent body, 
desirous only of reaching the truth, with no interest to serve 
malice, with no interest to cloud guilt, this investigation was con- 
ducted and brought to its close. In a remarkably brief state of 
time the entire story has been told. And upon invitation from 
that committee I am here to-day, now, to assist in closing that 
story and in assisting this august body to arrive at the truth of 
this most important question. And at the outset I unite most 
fervently with the splendid appeal which the distinguished coun- 
selor made before taking his seat, that this investigation should 
be conducted without fear or favor, that the truth should be ascer- 
tained, that guilt should be determined, that no pains should be 
spared to find out who, of those who contradict each other, in this 
remarkable story is telling the truth. 

I realize that the character of the Senator should in and of 
itself be sufficient to repel an ordinary attack. I realize the fact, 
and am proud of it, that in this body stand men who have not got 
to answer every charge that is made in the press or made by idle 
accusation. I realize also that there is no man who stands here 
or who ever stood here, appreciating the dignity and the character 
of the situation, who does not fully appreciate the necessity, more 
than that, the compulsion, when the charge is made, as this charge 
is made, of sifting it without fear or favor to the very bottom, no 
matter what the fate may be of the parties involved. There are 
greater questions involved here than the character of any Senator. 
You sit here in a tribunal that owes its origin to civilization, 
itself under the mandates of a constitution that comes from the 
day when constitutions were first written. Before such a tribunal 



576 

not only Senators have stood, Judges have stood, Assemblymen 
have stood, Governors have stood, Presidents have stood, Kings 
themselves have stood. Here is an authority that no tribunal can 
question or pass upon. This is a power that is guided only by 
your sense of righteousness and of honor, and I know in appealing 
to you that I am appealing to a body that is guided by such feel- 
ings, and by such alone. 

I am not permitted in the character that I represent, to take the 
same liberties with the character of witnesses that may be properly 
taken on the other side. It is none of my concern what Kendall is, 
or none of yours, except as it may effect the character in which 
he appears in this case. I don't feel the responsibility of defend- 
ing him wherein he is attacked only so far as the testimony which 
he has given here impresses me as worthy of defense and of 
comment. I am not going through this record for the purpose of 
picking out here and there detached and isolated statements which 
may contradict each other. 'No case was ever tried or ever will 
be, if witnesses tell the truth, where you will not find contradic- 
tions between the witnesses, or the witnesses contradicting each 
other. But if this case were manufactured, as counsel states, if 
it were the result of a deliberate plan for the purpose of tearing 
down the character of Senator Stilwell, then you would find a 
case that had no inconsistencies, you would not find Kendall 
himself contradicting himself on a matter, trivial or important. 
You would have a story told from beginning to end, and a story 
that would have had no incongruities or contradictions in it. 

There do appear, as have been pointed out, apparent contra- 
dictions, but I want to show you in the brief time that I shall 
occupy your attention, that those matters, so far as bearing upor. 
the construction which have been applied — has been applied in 
this case, don't even throw any doubt according to my estimation, 
and I believe according to yours when you have passed upon this 
story. 

Mr. Kendall came to the City of Albany on the I8th day of 
February for the purpose of seeking beneficial legislation that 
would prevent what he had termed unjust discrimination by the 
stock exchange against him. He went to the Governor and by the 
Governor was sent to Senator Stilwell. He told Senator Stilwell 
what he wanted. I am not going to pass upon that or take any 
time ; it doesn't matter to me whether they were there a half hour 
or whether they were there ten minutes. The fact is they did 



577 

have a conversation^ and they all agree what it was about. Senator- 
Stihvell and Mr. Kendall ^agreed that, as the result of that con- 
versation, Kendall was to return to the city of Albany on Feb- 
ruary 19th and was to appear before the Committee of Codes for 
the purpose of stating to that committee his case with a view 
of getting beneficial legislation. 

On the 19th day of February begins the most important part 
of this tale. On that day Mr. Kendall and Mr. Field came to 
Albany upon this mission to appear before the Codes Committee. 
They appeared before the Codes Committee. I am going to pass 
over that — briefly over matters that are of little or no im- 
portance for the present. During the hearing before that Codes 
Committee Kendall says, and Field agrees with him, that Senator 
Stilwell left his place as the presiding officer in that committee, 
beckoned Kendall to go outside in the corridor, and when outside 
took place the conversation which is the basis of the first charge 
made against Senator Stilwell. 

I don't care how untruthful they may paint Kendall, I want 
you to listen to this storv, listen to the admitted facts and see 
what conclusion you come to as to whether or not this contains a 
charge or makes a charge against the Senator that shows him to 
be unworthy to sit in this high place. Kendall swears that Stil- 
well drew from his poeket two pieces of paper upon which he 
had written some kind of a legislative measure, something at least 
• — page 18 — something at least in regard to the purpose for 
which Kendall was here. This is what Kendall says : '^ And I, 
after reading the pieces of paper that were produced, answered 
that that did not seem to be sufficient to fit our case to give us 
relief, and he said that it would take some research, that he was 
a lawyer practicing in I^ew York and was a member of a law 
firm there, and that he ought to be paid for drawing the bill." I 
said, ^^ You surprise me a little, because the Governor mentioned 
to me that there was a bill drafting department and sent yoTi to 
me to have you hear my case and to have the bill drawn." 

Xow, weigh that in your mind and decide upon the probability 
or possibility of any man constructing a tale of that kind, against 
whose mental capacity for reasoning there can be assailed such 
shafts of ridicule and contempt as have been fired upon him in 
this case. He was on the stand for eight hours, as I recall it, 
under a fierce cross-examination and not a syllable of j:hat story 
v/as changed bv that cross-examination, but remained when he 



57« 

left the stand as an accusation unanswered except by tlie answer 
which Senator Stilwell afterward made, which I insist is not a 
complete answer to the charge, as I shall speak to you later. 

After that statement, after Senator Stilwell said that he was a 
lawyer practicing in 'New York and he ought to be paid for draw- 
ing the bill, and he replied what I have read, Kendall said, '' How 
much will .it cost any^vay ? " He said, " It ought to be worth 
$500," and I said, '' It could not take more than a couple of days' 
research to find out what you want to know, and I should think 
one hundred dollars a day would pay you amply," and he said, 
^^Make it $250," I said, ^^All right." 

How is that story contradicted ? Senator Stilwell, his testimony 
has been read, states that he told Kendall he should get his lawyer 
to write it, and Kendall said he didn't have any lawyer that was 
familiar with it ; Stilwell says, '' You must have a lawyer ; you 
have been in law suits a great deal, and you must have some one 
who is familiar with this business." He insisted that he didn't 
have; they spoke about the Bill Drafting Department, and here 
is where a remarkable piece of evidence has been injected in this 
case. Now, Kendall never had heard of the Bill Drafting Depart- 
ment until the Grovernor had mentioned it. There was no 
evidence that he was sufficiently familiar with legislation here that 
he knew anything about whether or not there was a Bill Drafting 
Department, yet we find Senator Stilwell saying that the moment 
he mentioned the Bill Drafting Department that Kendall said, 
"Why, the thieves of the stock exchange will probably — may get 
them to put in a joker in that bill." 

Here a little testimony has crept in that I think my associates 
on the other side have failed to discover the importance of. 
Kendall did not know who drew the stock exchange bills. He 
didn't know there was a stock exchange bill drawn unless it were 
told to him in that conversation, by Senator Stilwell. He would 
naturally assume that an organization of that character would — 
or the people who were interested in the opposition, might be able 
to prepare, and possibly did prepare the bill that was introduced 
and under discussion. There isn't any evidence to show. The 
evidence shows the improbability of his knowing that there was 
any such a thing as a Bill Drafting Department until he came 
here, or that what knowledge he had at that time would indicate 
to him that the Bill Drafting Department was engaged in draft- 
ing a bill on the stock exchange. 



579 

A\o\v, to show who tells the probable story, what is the outcome 
of that conversation I The result is that between Senator Stilwell 
and Kendall the price was agreed upon that somebody was to get 
for drawing that bill. The fact is that Senator Stilwell made the 
bargain. You can't call it by any other name. That he made the 
price with Kendall for a price to be paid to somebody for doing 
that work. There isn't any question but that that bargain was 
made regardless of the amount of labor to be employed in draw- 
ing up the bill, regardless of the value of the services, regardless 
of what the man who was employed — whose name is Lewis — 
might himself think the work was worth. 

Isow weigh that, Senators, in the scales of your reasoning 
powers and answer who tells the probable story. Here is a 
Senator, who although he says he himself was not to receive pay 
for drawing this bill, does admit that he fixed the price that was 
to be paid for drawing the bill, which w^as the price that after- 
wards was paid for drawing that bill. 

'Now. there was nothing done on that day, on the 19th, except 
that Kendall spoke before that committee upon his bill. He comes 
back here on the 26th. He says he was invited to come back by 
Senator Stilwell. There is a letter from him upon the files here 
that seems to contradict that statement. He may be right about 
it, but his letter indicates that he wrote — in fact the letter states 
that he wrote to Senator Stilwell saying that he wanted to appear. 
And I am not going to spare him where he places himself in any 
inconsistent way; and I am not going to ask you to go into the 
question of his character because that is insignificant except as his 
story is supported by the facts and as gives a logical story of 
what actually took place. 

They come back here on the 26th, they are here at the invitation 
of Senator Stilwell or at the request of Mr. Kendall, or both, and 
it is entirely consistent that both is true. They come here to that 
bar. (Indicating brass railing in Senate Chamber) Senator Stil- 
well is inside, the Senate is in session, Stilwell asks Kendall to 
come in, Kendall declines, says he wishes to smoke and stays 
outside until the Senator finishes. They had lunch together that 
day. Field claims he went down to the Ten Eyck and had lunch. 
Here there is a lot of contradicted testimony, but this simply all 
goes to the question of the veracity of the witnesses involved, and 
I am dealing with the facts. According to Kendall's story they 
come back here when the joint committee holds its session for the 



580 

purpose of the hearing upon the stock exchange, and outside that 
bar, for the first time, Kendall is introduced to Lewis and at the 
same time to Field. 

I^ow, Senator Stilwell claims that Lewis was introduced before 
that to Kendall and that thej talked about the sending of the 
check. Mr. Field says that Kendall was introduced — that Lewis 
was introduced to both of them at the time. From there Kendall 
and Lewis — or Lewis and Field, go to a room for the purpose 
of drafting a bill. 

I am going to pass now on to the important questions involved 
here. The fact is that they did work upon the draft of a bill for 
some time, that they produced something from that committee 
room that in the end was not satisfactory to Mr. Kendall. It was 
arranged at that day that Kendall was to send a check to Lewis, 
the check that represented the amount that Senator Stilwell had 
agreed was to be paid for that work. That check was sent and 
that check was paid. 

Now, there has been some evidence introduced here for the 
purpose of showing that the money was not drawn upon that check 
by Lewis at any one time, that the check was deposited at the 
Stanwix Hall Hotel, and that amounts were drawn at different 
times. Lewis swears that he drew first twenty dollars, then 
twenty-five, and then a hundred, making a hundred and twenty- 
five dollars that he drew within two or three days or the first week 
after the check was deposited. 

The clerk of the hotel, who has been brought here for the pur- 
pose of substantiating, says that he did not at any time draw aa 
high as a hundred dollors, and that he did not draw a hundred 
and forty-five dollars the first week, so that the corroborative evi- 
ence that Lewis himself brings here, contradicts him, and shows 
if I were going to show that there was an imaginary case built up 
or that there was a construction of something for the purpose of 
proving what did not happen, that we have it right there. It is 
not significant enough for me to dwell upon. It does not show 
whether or not the proceeds of that check were divided. To me it 
is not important, or at least its impoTtance does not entirely with- 
draw the charge because of the fact that the payment was made, 
that the arrangement was made for doing something that I claim 
was not proper to be done under that retainer. That still remains. 

ISTow, then, we come to an important part of his case. Lewis is 
placed upon the stand. Lewis claims that he received the entire 



581 

two hundred and fifty dollars. He swore it upon the stand. He 
admits upon cross-examination that w^hen this story w^as first told 
to your — one of your distinguished members, w^hen there was no 
reason for falsehood, there was no temptation to conceal, when he 
w^as face to face with a man who got him his position, when every 
feeling of gratitude and honor, if one he had, should inspire him 
to tell the truth, he stated to Senator Wagner that he got half of 
that two hundred and fifty dollars and that Senator Stilwell got 
the other half. That, of course, is not evidence against Senator 
Stilwell, but it is evidence that destroys the character as a witness 
of Samuel Lewis, and it may fit in, Senators, with the entire story 
for the purpose of showing what became of the two hundred and 
fifty dollars. 

Xow, he comes upon the stand after that becomes important to 
him, to tell a difterent story. After he has had time to dwell upon 
his story he comes upon the stand under oath and denies what he 
stated at a time when there was no motive for him to lie. I sub- 
mit that as a significant fact and as the second chapter in this 
story. 

You have now the bargaining for the two hundred and fifty 
dollars ; you have the payment of it ; you have the contradiction of 
the witness Lewis and the hotel clerk as to how he collected the 
money; you have Lewis himself destroying his own testimony by 
denying that when he w^as first asked about the case, that he said 
he only got half of the two hundred and fifty dollars. 

Pass on to something that is more significaant to the second 
charge on there, that iSenator Stilwell requested two thousand 
dollars, five hundred dollars each for four members of his com- 
mittee. The events lead us dov;n to the hearing upon the stock 
exchange bill upon the 19th day of March. 

It is necessary for me to dwell for a few^ minutes upon what 
was said in that hearing about the brief, because that becomes 
extremely significant in their mind and in mine for the purpose 
of explaining what is meant in this letter of Senator Stilwell 
which was written on the 21st. At that meeting there appeared 
before the committee Mr. Milburn, who said he wished to file a 
brief, which was then in print, with the members of that com- 
mittee, for the purpose of showing the kind of a — March 19th 
is the date I am talking about — for the purpose of showing the 
kind of men that they are dealing with. That is in evidence. It 
is a severe, bitter, complete and vitriolic attack upon the character, 



582 

the credibility and every other quality that went to make up Mr. 
Kendall. There could not have been any necessity for saying. any- 
thing more or anything else than v^as in that brief in respect to 
Mr. Kendall or his connection with the stock exchange or with 
the legislative relief that he was seeking to get. Kendall was 
there and Kendall — Mr. Milburn left and stated this to the com- 
mittee before he went. He said if Kendall made any remarks 
derogatory to the stock exchange he wanted a chance to reply. The 
fact is upon the record, and I believe it is sworn to by Senator 
Stilwell himself, that he said they would receive no more briefs, 
that the hearing would be closed after Mr. Kendall talked. In 
any event, Mr. Kendall, the proof is, knew just exactly what Mil- 
burn had filed with the committee, copies of it had been sent to 
the members of the committee before, and knew thoroughly the 
extent to which he was attacked. 

!N'ow, then, he wrote Senator Stilwell after he got home on the 
20th, stating that if anything was said by Mr. Milburn, anything 
further, that he wanted an opportunity to reply or to send a state- 
ment. In the meantime M. Kendall had the remarks that he made 
at that hearing written out by a stenographer, and the significance 
of that is coming in a little later. March 20th — that is the 
letter that Kendall wrote: 

^^Am informed Milburn put in brief last night. If it would be 
in order for me to have an opportunity to write an answer, will 
you loan us your copy by mail for one day. George H. Kendall." 

'Now, he was not speaking of the brief that Milburn filed on 
the 19th. He had that; that had been distributed to everybody. 
He didn't need to ask Senator Stilwell to lend him his copy. 
What was he speaking of? He was speaking of an additional 
brief if one were filed. If one were not filed, he was speaking of 
nothing. It was not necessary for him to reply because there 
was nothing for him to reply to. 

!N'ow, this is what the counsel for Senator Stilwell bases — 
based their explanation of the letter of the 21st on, which says, 
'' If you wish to see me about brief, please come to my office." 

ITow, that is the beginning of the next charge. Written March 
21st, addressed to George H. Kendall, (reading) : 

" Dear Sir. — After speaking to you the other day about the 
civil suit, I looked up the law bearing on the matter and am satis- 



5S3 

fied it can be accomplislied by adding a new section which I have 
added to the enclosed bilL" 

He enclosed a bill with some interlineations. Let me pause right 
here and say they were paying Lewis for drawing the bill and 
Stilwell was working upon it. The very amendment that was 
most significant in the estimation of Mr. Kendall was the amend- 
ment that Stilwell, Senator Stilwell himself was working npon. 
ISTow, this is significant as show^ing whether or not Senator Stil- 
well was concerned in any way in the remuneration which was to 
be received from drawing that bill. I am not charging, I am not 
going to charge anything against Senator Stilwell. I am going to 
lay the evidence before the judge and let the Senators do the 
weighing and the analyzing. It is more painful to me to have 
to submit these matters against a Senator than it would be a 
great deal if I had the position of explaining them away. 

Here is something that I claim is inexplicable ; that it has not 
been explained by any thing, satisfactorily at least, by anything 
that appears in this case. 

'^ I will be at my office, 261 Broadway, Monday next, at 3 p. m. 
if you desire to see me about brief." 

Mr. Wilson. — General, will it interrupt you if I make a state- 
ment concerning that evidence? 

Attorney-General Carmody. — Well, I don't think you better 
until I get through. You are going to have some time to talk. 

I want to say to the Senators here that the letter which gave 
the greatest consolation to Senator Stilwell and his counsel, or 
rather the telegram that I have just read to you, for it is a tele- 
gram (reading). ^'Am informed Milburn put in brief last night. 
If it would be in order for me to have an opportunity to write an 
answer, will you loan us your copy by mail for one day." The 
fact of finding it on the letter book of Senator Stilwell — of Mr. 
Kendall and finding words in it that would give some color at 
least to the claim of Senator Stilwell, and to that extent that it 
militated against the claim of Mr. Kendall. I state that for the 
purpose of showing that what we tried to do was to get in every 
bit of testimony, no matter who it hit or hurt or helped, and with 
that end in view that was placed in. But it was not necessary 
that there should be any further discussion about brief. If Sen- 
ator Stilwell wished to explain the letter or the telegram he would 



584 

have said, ^' There was no brief put in by Mr. Milbum. It is 
not necessary for you to go to the trouble of making out a further 
brief." While he was writing the letter he could have made that 
explanation. And it seems to me that that sentence has the — 
bears the significance that is claimed for it by Kendall. 

ISTow, Kendall claims that he did go to the office on the 24:th — 
that would be Monday — to see Senator Stilwell, knowing that 
there was an invitation contained in that letter, knowing that 
Senator Stilwell wanted to see him about something, and he 
stated when they got in the private office Senator Stilwell said, or 
he said, he isn't sure which, but it may well come from the lips 
of either, '^ There is no brief." Of course Senator Stilwell knew 
there wasn't another brief to be put in. l^aturally it would come 
from him if there was no brief except the brief that had been put 
in, and the brief that was familiar to Mr. Kendall. That is the 
probability of that story. 

Kendall says — this is one of his versions, '' I realized that by 
the fact that there was no brief," and Senator Stilwell said, " We 
may as well get down to business ; four of my committeemen want 
five hundred dollars apiece to report that bill out of committee." 

" Kendall. — That is only to report it out of committee ? 

" Stilwell.— Yes. 

''Kendall. — To report it out of committee into the Senate? 

'' Stilwell.— Yes. 

" Kendall.— If I should pay you that $2,000 would that in- 
sure it passing ? 

'' Stilwell.— ^0, that is reporting it out. 

" Kendall. — Is there not another committee on codes on the 
other side of the house, of the Assembly ? 

" Stilwell. — Yes, there is another committee there. 

'' Kendall. — Would that include the House side of reporting 
it out? 

" Stilwell. — 'No, it would cost — that would cost you some- 
thing." 

Now, there is no specific charge of a felony. If that solicitation 
were made by Senator Stilwell of Kendall, as Kendall claims it 



5»o 

was, then it is a felony, because it is a felony for a member of the 
Legislature to solicit or to agree to take a consideration for the 
purpose of influencing his official action. There is a direct charge. 

Pass over the two hundred and fifty dollar check if you please. 
Let us get down to the charge of soliciting two thousand dollars 
for the purpose of getting that bill reported out of his committee. 
I call your attention first to the pernicious nature of the charge. 
It w^ould be virtuous compared with that if a Senator should say, 
'' I want two thousand dollars." The man who he is talking 
with would know that there was only one person involved and 
only one person to be corrupted. Here is a case where every 
member of the committee was placed under the suspicion of Mr. 
Kendall. ]N^ot the four, because their names were not given ; 
and Mr. Kendall would ever after feel that every member of that 
committee might be the one that was included in the four, and 
that was to receive his share of the two thousand dollars. I say 
that charge, if true, is as malic^'^^as and as sinister as it would 
be possible for a charge of corruption to be. It is the purpose — 
it was the purpose of introducing the evidence that followed to 
throw some light upon that. They do stand face to face and alone 
when that charge is made, and I ask you Avhen in the history of 
crime did men contemplate it or promote it in any other way than 
when they are alone ? Don't expect to find witnesses to such a 
charge. Don't ever believe that a man will sell himself or buy 
another when witnesses are present. And v/hether Kendall knew 
the gravity of what he was doing, he Avas equally guilty, and when 
he came on the stand and told that, he confessed — if he agreed 
to it at least — he confessed to a felony that would have sent him 
behind the bars. 

And I ask you. Senators, in the face of that when a man is 
willing to put himself in the toils of the law, and when he says, 
as he says, '' I don't care what happens to me," as he told counsel 
when he pressed him and pressed him upon that point, '^ I don't 
care what happens to me, I am here to tell the truth." He ad- 
mitted that he was participating in a felony. He told it openly 
and tried to prove it. And much of the time of this committee 
was taken up for the purpose of proving that what took place at 
that time, as he said it had, actually did take place. 

'Now, let us see from the events that followed, from the admitted 
proof and from the proof that must be regarded as established, 
which is true, whose story is the logical one, who is telling the 



586 

truth. Kendall proceeds and says tliat at that time he asked 
about the Committee in the other House, and Senator Stilwell 

says, 

^' I am going back to Albany, I am going tonight at eight 
o'clock, or I am going to be there at eight o'clock, and I will find 
out what it will cost to get this bill reported out of the Codes 
Committee of the Assembly, and I will send you a telegram with 
a number on it that will mean the number of hundreds of dollars 
that will be necessary to get that bill out of the Codes Committee." 

That ended that conversation. It was left that Senator Stilwell 
was to send a telegram from Albany when he arrived, that would 
have — that would contain the number. He sent this telegram. 
It was filed here at 12:25, dated March 25th, 1913. 

'^ Fifteen is the correct number." 

Now, he came here to Albany for the purpose of finding out the 
correct number, for the purpose of finding out the number of 
men that were on the Codes Committee, he sends the telegram 
stating that it is the correct nmnber, and what is the fact ? The 
fact is that it is not the correct number, that the number is 
thirteeiL So that his explanation of what that telegram means, 
his explanation of what he is to do when he comes to Albany, 
absolutely falls flat. And I don't care how much the mentality 
of Kendall may be assailed, assail that telegram, throw that out 
of the case. 

You might as well try to reach your hand under these pillars 
and shake them down upon our heads as try to explain away 
that telegram and its connection with these events. 

What would you think without any intervening circumstances 
if you took up that telegram and read upon it. 

^M5 is the correct number." 

Would you not think somebody had left something out of it? 
Would you not think that somebody was trying to cover up some- 
thing? Wouldn't you realize it is cabalistic in its construction; 
that it has a meaning to the man who receives it and tO' the 
man who sends it that is not apparent to anyone else who reads 
it? 

We must apply the rules of reason here. If Senator Stilwell 
came to Albany to find out the correct number of men on the 
Codes Committee, he understood the importance of doing it 



587 

sufficiently to post himself correctly upon it and he would not 
have made that mistake in the number. Suppose you had on here 
the correct number would that be the kind of information that 
Senator Stilwell would be sending? Would it be the manner in 
which the information would be sent? Why, it would require 
just as few words to say '' 15 members on the Codes Committee 
Assembly/' if that is what he intended to say, and he could 
say something that could have a meaning to the man that 
received it. It is very apparent that that telegram bears out the 
more reasonable — at least the construction that is placed upon it 
by Mr. Kendall than it does the construction placed upon it by 
Senator Stilwell. It is absolutely logical and full of meaning if 
you take Mr. Kendall's story; it is absolutely illogical and un- 
truthful if you take Senator Stilwell's story. 

As bearing upon the truth or falsity of the story, we have 
another bit of evidence in this case. It is true that Mr. Kendall 
said frequently upon his cross-examination that he did not know 
the number of names, the number of men on the Codes Com- 
mittee in the Assembly. He does say, however, in that cross- 
examination that ^' If I did know at any time I have forgotten it.'' 
It is indeed possible that in the long, searching examination that 
was given Mr. Kendall that he might have entirely forgotten 
this testimony that I am now going to call your attention to. 

He does produce, or rather Mr. Field produces at the hearing 
this 1913 list of members of Assembly. Field claims that he 
had this book from that time, from the 13th of February, when 
he says it was given to him by Senator Stilwell, down to the 
time that he produced it upon the trial. Mr. Kendall, when his 
attention is called to it, and his recollection is refreshed in re- 
gard to it, says that that book containing the names of the mem- 
bers of the committees in the two houses was given to him by 
Senator Stilwell on the 13th day of February, the date they first 
came lo Albany. 

It seems to me that the testimony, the fact that they did have 
it in their possession, that it is a common publication, that it is a 
publication that they could have or that anyone else could have, 
supports the testimony which they give in regard to its being 
delivered to them ; and it would seem to me from the fact that it 
is a common publication that it was open to Senator Stilwell to 
consult when he came to Albany, if he did come, for the purpose 
of finding out the number of members on the Assembly Codes 



588 

Committee and that he could have got the exact number from 
this book. In fact, he says he did take the book, the Assembly 
white book, as he put it, and that he had it before him when 
he wrote his telegram, and that he made the mistake of two 
in making the count with the book before him and the list of 
names. 

Let me go back to the conversation of the 2'5th once more. Not 
only did Senator Stilwell say that Mr. Kendall asked him to send 
the telegram indicating the number of men upon the Assembly 
Codes Committee but asked him also to write a letter and tell 
him their addresses and their names. I^ow, imagine the futility 
of receiving the number without knowing who they were or what 
their names were. Bear in mind the purpose for which it is 
conceded — claimed by Senator Stilwell that Mr. Kendall wanted 
this testimony, wanted these names — he wanted them for the 
purpose of sending to them a copy of the remarks that he made 
on the 19th day of March before the Committee hearing in 
Albany. 'Now then it was just as important that he should know 
their names as the number. Indeed, it was of no importance to 
know the number unless he knew the names. Getting the number 
on the telegram did not answer his purpose at all. He would be 
just as much in the dark as to whom he was to send his remarks 
to. How is that explained ? 

Why, Senator Stilwell says he wanted to know the number of 
copies of his Speech to order from the stenographer. The stenog- 
raphers were Albany stenographers. Senator Stilwell was com- 
ing to Albany. Now, wouldn't the natural thing to do be for 
Senator Stilwell, instead of sending the telegram and afterwards 
a letter that I will call your attention to, to see the stenographers 
here and order the number of copies and have them sent either to 
Mr. Kendall or have them sent to the members of the Codes 
Committee ? 

You cannot take the story as it is told by the defendant, it 
seems to me, and get any sense out of it at all. That is not the 
way men do business, and when you turn from that incoherent 
and incongruous story to the other side ; when you apply the con- 
nection of this telegram, which is the fact, to the testimony of 
Mr. Kendall, which is disputed, you have it entirely confirmed, 
and what Kendall said, that the telegram was to be sent for the 
purpose of telling the number of hundred dollars it would cost 
to get this bill reported out of the Assembly Codes Committee, 



589 

becomes coherent, consistent and established. It also fits in with 
the story that he tells about the offer of $2,000, or the request 
for the $2,000 that was made, he claims, on the 24th day of 
March. 

Here is another link in that story that is harmonious with the 
story that Mr. Kendall tells and is entirely destructiA^e, or incon- 
sistent at least with the story that Senator Stilwell tells. 

Upon the receipt of that telegram "15 is the correct number," 
Mr. Kendall swears that this telegram was prepared and sent 
from his place of business in E'ew York, dated March 25, 1913, 
time of filing 2 :43, 

" STEPHEN J. STILWELL, 

" Senate Chamber, 

'' Albany, E". Y. 

'^ Five for thing as law seems to me better than present uncer- 
tainties." 

Now, in respect to that telegram I want to recall, with my 
hearty approbation, the splendid eulogy delivered by counsel upon 
the veracity of Miss Allen. Miss Allen swears she wrote that 
telegram and deposited it in the Brevoort House in the City of 
New York. I accept the character of veracity which you gave 
her and ask now, and as far as I am concerned, you can have all 
the time you desire to answer it, what explanation is there of that 
telegram ? 

Why, we had it disputed in the course of the trial by the sug- 
gestion of questions asked, at least, that it ever was written out. 
It was disputed that it ever was received and it stands disputed 
here that this telegram was not received. Yet this splendid young 
lady, whom I agree would not lie, writes this telegram at the 
dictation of Mr. Kendall, deposits it in the Brevoort House, shrr 
thinks some time after half past one, but she does not remember 
the time. Now what becomes of that telegram ? In the first 
place, what is its significance? It is significant because it shows 
that Mr. Kendall still had in his mind that the telegram "15 is 
the correct number " had reference to a price or corruption money 
that was to be paid for something somewhere or to some person 
and that is why they vigorously opposed the introduction of that 
letter, that telegram ; and that is why they have placed themselves 
across the path of legitimate evidence ; that is why they are here 
denying something that the law says they cannot deny. That 



590 

the telegram was sent from IN'ew York as stated is admitted. 
That it means something wrong appears upon its face. It has 
no significance whatever in view of anything that Senator Stil- 
well has introduced into the case. ^' Five for '' — bear it in mind, 
^' Five for thing as law seems to me better than present uncertain- 
ties.'' The meaning of it unquestionably is that he would prefer 
to pay five,- which, as the construction was without question given 
to it, meant five thousand, to have the law passed, than the present 
uncertainties. That is, the uncertainty that if he paid $2,000 in 
the Senate Committee and $1,500 in the Assembly Committee, then 
that uncertainty he would willingly pay five, because it might cost 
him something after it got out. 

Isn't it the logical explanation of that telegram? Here is the 
fact. This does not depend upon the veracity of Kendall or Field 
or of anyone else in his employ. It tells its own story. It is an 
eloquent story. We may bow our heads as we translate it, but it 
means something that we cannot get out of this case consistent 
with the honesty of the transaction that was going along. E'ow 
that telegram was received here at Albany. We proved by the 
messenger boy that such a telegram with the number 141 upon 
the comer of the envelope, which was the same number that was 
placed upon the copy that was kept in the office and offered in 
evidence, was delivered by him or attempted to be delivered to 
Senator Stilwell in this Chamber. Bear in mind what the system 
is, for the purpose of showing the probative force of this evi- 
dence. When this telegram was received, the telegram company 
took a water copy of it. They placed a number upon that water 
copy and they kept it. They wrote out the dispateh upon their 
usual blanks and gave it to the boy to deliver, and upon the 
envelope of that dispatch was a number that corresponded with 
the number of the dispatch so that the delivery of it by number 
could be identified as the delivery of the dispatch that was on 
the inside. 

So complete is that proof, so perfect is their system of doing 
business, that we have that unanswerable proof, that that telegram 
was sought to be delivered, this very telegram. There isn't any 
question about it upon the record that it was sent to Senator 
Stilwell and sought to be delivered in this chamber by the mes- 
senger boy. The messenger boy did not find Senator Stilwell 
here so he took it to the distributing ofiice of the company here 
in the Capitol. He left it with Mr. Gorham. He took Mr.- 



591 

Goriiain's receipt for it and Mr. Gorhain afterward sought to 
deliver it. He brought it to the rail of this chamber and gave 
it to a messenger to give to Senator Stilwell. 

That is the proof in regard to that telegTam. AYhat does the 
law say about it ? The law says that telegram was delivered. The 
decision of the Court of Appeals in this State is to the effect, 
that taking into account the accuracy with which the telegram 
companies do their business and the mail service is carried on, 
taking into account the experience of men, that the great major- 
ity of dispatches are received as sent. That it creates a presump- 
tion, strong and violent, unanswerable, unanswerable only in one 
way and I will call your attention to it later, that the dispatch 
as sent was delivered ; and you lawyers know that in your rules 
and in your Code of Procedure you are permitted to mail notices 
of trial and other papers and prove that you have mailed them, 
and that cannot be answered. The law does not permit the lawyer 
to whom they w^ere addressed to say that he did not receive it. It 
is a presumption that ripens into a fact. 

Xow, then, it is possible to deny the charge that a telegram was 
received as sent or that a letter was received. How ? You have 
got to show either that it w^as missent or there was some miscar- 
riage on that date of the mails, or some fact had happened, some 
unusual fact that accounts for the destruction of the letter or tele- 
gram, for its misdelivery or its failure to arrive. 

I ask the Senators here if anybody believes imder that proof 
that it is reasonable that that telegram was not received as deliv- 
ered. Whether received or not, the man who sent it was living 
a consistent story in this case. He at least had in mind the 
significance that was to be attached to it, and why should he send 
a telegram of that kind in view of the story that Senator Stil- 
well tells ? He would be worse than he has been described, if he, 
out of whole cloth, without its being connected with anything else, 
without the possibility of its meaning anything in connection with 
any other part of the story, if he should send that telegram, " Five 
for thing as law seems to me better than present uncertainties.^' 
That bears no signature. Here is a further significant fact. 

That telegram was received some time in the afternoon, between 
three and four o'clock, as I recall the record. What is the next 
step that proves the logic of the story of the complainant here? 
Betw^een four and five that afternoon Senator Stilwell called up 



592 

tlie Xew York Bank E^ote Company and had a talk — according 
to the records, this is admitted — he called up the New York Bank 
Note Company and had a talk with somebody. 

Mr. Kendall claims he had a talk with him and in that talk 
Kendall says that — ■ 4.47 p. m. is the time of the talk, it is a talk 
between 3605, that is the 'Senate 'phone, and 937 Spring, that is 
the 'phone of the New York Bank Note Company. It is admitted 
that the talk took place. What was said is disputed. 

In that conversation Senator Stilwell claims that he read por- 
tions of a letter that had been received from Carter, Ledyard & 
Milburn. 

Mr. Kendall says he called him up and said, '^ What do you 
mean by that telegram " and he said that he meant just what he 
said. He said he objected to putting up any money without 
knowing his bill was going to pass. 

And he said he did. 

Then Senator Stilwell says, '' You object to paying $3,500 ? " 

And he said, ^' If you don't pay me 35 " — this is the substance 
of it — ^' then there is nothing doing in respect to reporting your 
bills out of the committee." This is Kendall's story. That story 
fits into the conversation of the 24th where it was agreed that a 
price was to be paid. 

I will read the testimony, and if that is agreed, it is an absolute 
confirmation it seems to me of the entire story that Mr. Kendall 
tells. 

'^ What does your telegram mean ? " — bear in mind there was 
no signature to the telegram and he could not have known from 
whom it came unless by reason of the subject matter that it 
covered. 

^' Just what it says," 

is the answer. 

^^What is that?" 

'' I said, suppose I pay you $3,500. What certainty is there 
that that sum of money will do me any good ? Is it for merely 
reporting the bill out of the two committees ? And he said yes. 
Then I said, my telegram seems to me a pretty good argument 
against paying the money, and he said, well, what will you do, 
will you pay the money or not ? And I said to him, I don't see 
any use of paying it, and he said, well — I said, especially as it 



593 

covers nothing particularly, and lie said, well, if yon are not will- 
ing to pay me the $3,500 in advance, there is nothing doing on 
reporting those bills out of committee." 

You have no concern, in the first place, it seems to me, to con- 
sider what is apparently impossible, that any man could construct 
such a conversation as that out of whole cloth. In the next place 
you have got to consider the explanation which Senator Stilwell 
makes of it. He claims that he had received a letter from Carter, 
Ledyard & Milburn which stated that the remarks that were made 
by Mr. Kendall, it appears in the record at pages 490 and 491, 
Senator Stilwell claims that he read over the 'phone and called 
up Mr. Kendall for the purpose of reading at this conversation 
had between four and five o'clock, the following portion of that 
letter included in the last two paragraphs which appear on 
page 493. 

Speaking of Kendall: 

" In his statement in regard to this list, Mr. Kendall has wil- 
fully sought to mislead and deceive the committee and has shown 
himself to be without regard for truth, unworthy of belief. For 
this reason, I think it unnecessary to deal with any of the allega- 
tions made by him. 

'' I submit that the reckless disregard for truth shown by Mr. 
Kendall proves that the exchange in refusing to put trust and 
confidence in a company under his management, showed good 
judgment and reached a sound conclusion." 

This is practically a reiteration of what had been stated in the' 
brief that was filed and left with the committee on March 19th. It 
does not contain anything new except possibly this, in his state- 
ment in regard to this list, and that is the list of men, as it was 
explained, in the Stock Exchange that were interested in the 
American Bank ^ote Company, that his statement in regard to 
that list of the members of the Stock Exchange interested in the 
American Bank ISTote Company, which was the company doing 
business for the Exchange, was absolutely false. 

In the brief filed they had called Mr. Kendall all kinds of a 
liar and a defamer. There was nothing here that required an 
answer if the original brief did not require an answer in which 
they assailed his entire business dealings with the Stock Exchange 
and with the public, in which they assail him as a maniac, in 
which thev assail him as a man of unbridled toni^Tie, in which thev 



594 

assail him as a man wlio had been fighting venomously and with- 
out reason the Stock Exchange for a number of years. 

I say, gentlemen, that explanation does not explain. That there 
Avould be no occasion, taking the explanation which the Senator 
himself makes, that there was no occasion for that conversation 
over the 'phone at all, it had all been covered by the previous 
matters. It states that such a letter had been received and that 
it was regarded as important that it should be brought to Mr. 
Kendall's notice. What would be the ordinary . way of doing 
business ? JSTaturally, it would be placed in an envelope and sent 
to Mr. Kendall for his consideration, instead of going to the 
trouble and the time of calling him up on the telephone and in- 
forming him of its contents in that way. 

We come down to perhaps the most important day of this whole 
transaction and to the most important events in the whole trans- 
action. 

It will be your duty, in view of the conflicting statements made 
in regard to what happened on the 26th day of March, to decide 
whose story, the story told by Mr. Kendall and his witnesses, or 
the story told by Mr. Stilwell, harmonizes with the known facts 
of the case. It is in evidence that on the morning of the 26th 
of March, Mr. Kendall called up Senator Stilwell at Albany; 
that the call was put in for the Senate 'phone, 3605 Main; that 
the line was busy and that later the call was received — was put 
in at 11 :05 or 10 :50 or something, and the connection, the call 
was received at 11 :05 and the conversation started a few minutes 
later. We have in evidence in regard to that conversation, and 
for the purpose of confirming the story told by Kendall, the slip 
made at that time in the regular course of business by the tele- 
phone company. 

Let me point out to you first what the contradiction is. Mr. 
Kendall says that he called Senator Stilwell up on the 'phone and 
says, I have been thinking that matter over, and then says, that 
unless my bills are reported out of the Codes Committee of the 
Senate and Assembly I am going to send out the following tele- 
gram. It appears on the statement of facts under the disputed 
facts at page 54. Getting over the preliminaries, '^ Is this Senator 
Stilwell ? " etc., Mr. Kendell then said to him, that he had been 
thinking the matter over and did not intend to be thrown down 
or balked in this way, he did not think there was any intention on 
the part of the Governor that he, Kendall should meet with the 



595 

proposition that Senator Stilwell had put before him, or that his 
bills were to be denied reporting out of his committee, or the 
Assembly Committee, unless he, Kendall, paid Senator Stilwell; 
and he, Kendall, had been in the fight for 34: years, and thinking 
that he had gotten so far in the matters at Albany, he did not 
intend that Senator Stilwell should balk him and that he intended 
to send to the Governor and to every member of the House and 
the Senate the following telegram: 

" Stilwell refuses to report my bill out of committee unless I 
pay him two thousand dollars and fifteen hundred dollars for the 
Committee on Codes. Have already paid him $250 for drawing 
the bill. What shall I do to get justice? " 

That is what he told Senator Stilwell over the 'phone. Mr. Ken- 
dall then said : 

" Xow, Senator, I will give you to-day to report my bill out of 
your Committee.'' 

Mr. Stilwell replied to that: 

" Do you think that is fair ? I have been doing all I can for 
you, and do you think that is fair treatment ? " 

This is just his exact language: 

" Mr. Stilwell said, ' a^o, Mr. Kendall, that is not fair, Mr. 
Kendall, because I have nothing to do with the Assembly Com- 
mittee.' " 

Senator Stilwell said, " I think I can have it reported out as a 
personal favor by my Committee, but I cannot do anything, 
promise anything in regard to the Assembly Committee." 

Xow, there he was accused over the 'phone. He was intimi- 
dated. He was accused of having exacted or attempting to exact 
a bribe of $2,000 or $1,500, and bear in mind that this was heard 
by others. This was taken down by Mr. Field, and his testimony 
I will come to later. 

So, proof of what occurred, it seems to me, is very accurate in 
the case. Instead of denying the charge, as he certainly would 
have done if the charge were manufactured out of whole cloth, 
he says : 

^' Do you think this is fair ? I have been doing what I can for 
you. I can get it out of my own committee as a personal favor, 
but I cannot promise to get it out of the Assembly Committee." 



590 

The conversation was a lengtliy one. The notes of it were 
taken dow^i by Mr. Field. That has been commented on at great 
length by counsel. Very properly so, because if he cannot get 
that out of this case then he cannot get anything into this case, 
for that tells the story. If what Mr. Field produces here on 
paper, as what he took down of a conversation that took place be- 
tween Mr. .Kendall, in which Senator Stilwell is accused over the 
'phone directly of having exacted a bribe of $2,00'0 for his com- 
mittee and $1,500 for the House, and if he cannot drive that out, 
then I say there is nothing left for this Senate to consider. How 
is it driven out and how is it supported ? 

This is the most important part of this case. You may criticise 
those notes if you will, but Mr. Field, I submit to those who heard 
him, left the stand with the impression of being an honest man. 
He told his story apparently with candor. In some little respects 
it differed from Mr. Kendall, but in the main his story, I am 
sure, impressed the Senators who heard it as the story of a man 
who was telling the truth. 

He said that Kendall knew that he was writing out that dis- 
patch, that conversation in longhand, and that he purposely dic- 
tated that long statement slowly so that it could be taken down 
by Mr. Field. It took thirteen minutes according to the record 
of the telephone company to carry on that conversation. They 
tell me there are about between 500 and 600 words. I have not 
counted them, but it is not at all unreasonable, indeed it is quite 
reasonable, that that many words could have been taken down by 
a man writing in ordinary longhand in less time than the con- 
versation took place over the 'phone. 

Mr. Field says that he had to leave omissions at certain places 
in taking down that testimony; that he left out the K for Ken- 
dall and S for Stilwell and afterward filled them in and went 
back over his notes after they were taken. He says this: 

^' I went over it and put things down. I corrected it immedi- 
ately afterward." 

So that, corrected in his own hand, the notes that are presented 
do not show exactly or correctly what he took down when he heard 
it. The fact remains that he was there on the 'phone, that Sen- 
ator Stilwell was talking, according to the records of the tele- 
phone office here at i^lbany and ^ew York ; that he was talking 
for thirteen minutes about something over the 'phone with Mr. 



597 

Kendall; that they had had a talk the day before, and there was 
nothing else of importance to talk about, unless tiie story wliicn 
Mr. Kendall tells is true. 

There was an eifort made, for the purpose of showing that the 
stenographer in Senator Stilwell's office heard this testimony, to 
show that it might be possible that this conversation did not take 
place from the Senate 'phone, as the card shows, but did take 
place over another 'phone, the 'phone in Senator Stilwell's room. 
According to the records which the office presents, that is utterly 
impossible, and so you have got the indubitable proof that the 
talk took place over the Senate 'phone and could not have been 
heard by Senator Stilwell's stenographer. 

What is their practice 'i According to the practice, as testified 
to, if Senator Stilwell had been called up at the Senate 'phone 
and they did not get him there and they afterwards got him at 
his o^vn office or his committee 'phone, that card would contain 
two numbers. It would contain the number of the Senate 'phone, 
that being the 'phone originally called, and the number where 
they got him. It contained just one number, and that is the 
Senate 'phone, and it is from the Senate 'phone, according to 
the dumb evidence of these slips which I hold in my hand, that 
Senator Stilwell spoke from the Senate 'phone. There was a 
conversation of thirteen minutes. What was that about ? It 
would not have taken three minutes to narrate the conversation 
he says he had. It is admitted they were talking about Mr. Ken- 
dall's bill. 

I ask you again to apply the rule of reason, and whose story is 
correct ? Here Mr. Kendall tells you a perfectly consistent story. 
He had got to the end of the bribe game. He had got to the 
point where he w^as touched, as he expressed it, for no accomplish- 
ment whatever, and then he showed the spunk and courage which 
the 'New York Stock Exchange gives him the credit of having. 
He backed up and said, now I will expose this rascality unless I 
get justice. I won't be driven to the wall any longer. I won't 
put up any more money and I won't be held up by anybody. I 
am 2:oing to have justice or the world shall know the story, the 
Avorld shall know the shame of Senator Stilwell who sought to 
hold me up and who sought to stand in the way of my honest 
legislation. 

What happens? Thirteen minutes was about the time thnt 
would be taken to narrate the conversation as we claim it oc- 



598 

curred, in which he was threatened with exposnre unless he 
allowed those bills to come out. 

Senator Stilwell immediately gets reported ont of his com- 
mittee, the committee of the Senate, the hill that had been talked 
about. On the 26th day of March, the very day he was threat- 
ened with exposure, he got this bill reported out of his committee. 
That bill had been introduced on the 27th of February and lay 
there for one month. I ask you to connect the story that Mr. 
Kendall tells, connect the story of the telegram of the coercion 
with the action of Senator Stillwell in immediately getting active 
aud having that bill reported out of his committee. He certainly 
would not have done it under threat unless there was behind that 
threat something that he feared. WJiy should he at that time, 
under that coercion, and with that speed and rapidity have gone 
about for' the purpose of getting that bill out of his committee, 
if the story that is told by Mr. Kendall is not true ? 

Yes, but there is more of that story. He called Mr. Kendall 
up at 1:31. This talk took place between 11 and 12 o'clock. 
He called Mr. Kendall up and said : 

^^ I have canvassed our committee, the Senate Committee, and 
I can get it out, but I cannot tell about the Assembly." 

Let me continue this conversation : 

Senator Stilwell says, '^ 'No, it is impossible, Mr. Kendall. 
There are 15 members of that committee." — that is the House 
Committee. 

'^And I don't even know when they are to have a meeting." 

Mr. Kendall says, " I tell you now there are several — some 
members are favorable to us and there is a comity of interest, and 
unless that is reported out of both committees within 24 hours or 
by six o'clock " — something like that — 

^^ I shall send the telegram." 

Mr. Stilwell said, " Well, Mr. Kendall, that is impossible. 
You might as well know it now, as I can do nothing with them. 
I will see what I ^can do with my committee." 

Mr. Kendall said, '^ Call me up in 15 minutes and tell me what 
you want to do." 

Mr. Stilwell then repeated that it was impossible, that he did 
not know any thing about the Assembly Committee. 



599 

Mr. Kendall said : 

^' Very well, I will let the telegram go." 

Senator Stilwell said: 

^' I will see what I can do.'' 

Mr. Kendall said: 
" Very well/' 

and he thinks that is all that occurred at that conversation. 

There was a later conversation, one at 4.30 p. m., at which Mr. 
Kendall — Mr. Stilwell called up Mr. Kendall and said he had 
canvassed his committee and that the bill would be reported out 
that day, that he had, as I recall it — I am going over this hastily, 
that he would make an effort to ascertain what the attitude of the 
Assembly Codes Committee would be, and it was agreed that 
the following morning Mr. Kendall was to be informed of what 
the Assembly Codes Committee did. 

Bear in mind now that it is admitted that the bill was reported 
out of the Assembly Codes Committee on the following day, or 
the 27th, just as Mr. Kendall said it must be, or else the telegram 
would go out. These conversations are here in evidence taken 
down by Mr. Field. It is true that Mr. Field is an officer of the 
Xew York Bank Kote Company. It is true that Mr. Kendall 
stated upon the stand as the reason why he did not want Miss 
Allen to take it down, was that she was so timid that she would 
not be able to tell it as she heard it or would be talked out of it if 
she did. I wonder what would happen, I wonder what height of 
criticism or vituperation would be thrown at her if he had used 
that girl instead of Field and offered her as a Vv^itness for the pur- 
pose of substantiating that testimony. 

Attention has been called to the fact that in regard to these 
telephone conversations she got herself in a peculiarly embarrass- 
ing situation before the committee. 

iSTo one of that committee will ever forget the scene, nor will 
I, and I hope they will know the cause as I know it now. I am 
sorry I did not know it then. You remember there was a piece 
of paper exhibited to that girl when she was on the stand, when 
she was testifying, and when she got through with her consterna- 
tion and she was unable to answer, .1 inquired for that slip of 
paper, it had disappeared. It could not be found. There is a 



600 

mystery connected with that slip of paper that wonld be very in- 
teresting if it were produced here. 

It is true she was confounded by counsel in presenting that slip 
of paper to her. It is also true that she did not say to Mr. Kendall 
what they say she did, that she did not say to him what was in- 
ferred in the question that was asked. The committee with a great 
sense of propriety retired at this point from the room and con- 
sulted and came back and suggested that we be permitted to ask 
Mr. Kendall what occurred. Mr. Kendall went on and explained, 
and after his explanation the whole thing disappeared so com- 
pletely, that I think everybody was amused rather than anything 
else. 

Mr. Kendall said that he went over when Senator Stilwell was 
asking some questions in the morning. This girl was there and 
was to be a witness. Mr. Kendall said, '' That is Senator Stilwell 
talking. I would like to have you listen to his voice.'' That is ad- 
mitted, that is perfectly natural, because she had heard a 'phone 
talk over the 'phone in which Senator Stilwell participated and it 
would be perfectly natural for him to want her to be able to 
identify the voice. 

What is the trouble about it all anyway ? Isn't it admitted that 
Senator Stilwell was talking at the time upon the 'phone. They 
don't deny the conversation. They admitted he was on the other 
end of the 'phone and was talking at the same timxC. .So that piece 
of evidence disappears, so far as casting any reflection upon the 
case which Mr. Kendall has presented before this august body. 

There is another letter in this case that I wish to call your 
attention to. Senator Stilwell after these telephonic communica- 
tions on the 26th, after the bills had been reported out, wrote a 
letter which is it seems to me extremely significant. In that letter, 
which was written on the 27th, that is two days after the telegram 
was sent, saying 15 is the correct number, mailed according to 
the envelope at 11 o'clock p. m. on the 27th, in which he explains 
his telegram, he says : 

^' In the telegram I sent you I said the number of members on 
the Assembly Codes Committee was T5. This was a mistake in 
count. I find that the correct number is 13, consisting of the 
following " — 

and then he gives the names. That explanation is made two days, 
mxore than two days after the telegram and after these three tele- 



1 



1 



601 

phonic communications on the 26th clnring which the correction 
should have been made, if at all. 

In reply to that letter Mr. Kendall wrote the following : 
'' Your alibi of the 2Tth received, but I don't think your ex- 
planation of telegram is conclusive. For one reason it is not given 
until after I had notified you of my intention to send the follow- 
ing telegram to the Governor and every member of the legislature." 
and then gives the telegram — 

" Your explanation above referred to having been written on 
the 27th, which was two days after the sending of the telegram 
Avhich it explains." 

That letter is entirely consistent with the attitude Mr. Kendall 
had taken; entirely inconsistent with anj^thing that Mr. Stilwell 
explains. Here we have a remarkable thing in reference to that 
letter. 

Senator Stilwell says he did not receive it. We find him deny- 
ing he received a telegram which was delivered into this Chamber. 
We find him now disputing the accuracy of the mails. The proof 
is that this letter was written, was copied and was deposited by 
Mr. Kendall opposite his ofiice. The presumption is that that 
letter was received. The same presumption that exists in regard 
to the telegram, and unless there is some explanation of the failure 
of the mails upon those days, or some mis-delivery of the letter, 
then that presumption ripens, I insist, into a fact. 

!N^ow you have the two important chains here that connect up 
the story of Mr. Kendall, corroborative of what he says ; the tele- 
gram and the letter both having behind thom presumptions of 
law, that cannot be refuted, you have them both denied by Senator 
Stilwell as having been received. 

I won't comment any more upon that but leave it with you 
to reach the conclusion which your own judgment warrants, as I 
will leave the entire case, but I want to ask you now, before clos- 
ing, — you have indeed been patient and we have indeed been 
prolix in summing up a case w^hich I believe is well known to you. 

Just one more word to you. Much has been said about Mr. 
Kendall and his peculiarities. He has strung streamers on his 
buildings in which he has proclaimed the thieves of the Stock Ex- 
change. Whether true or false, he is not the only man who utters 
those statements. If that be libelous, then they can indict some 
of the leading newspapers of the city of Xew York, for they 



602 

have repeatedly carried the same statement in their headlines. 
If he be telling a falsehood, then he is not alone in his position. 

I don't comment upon it, but it is in evidence, all these idiosyn- 
crasies, that he should have that feeling toward them. It is not 
at all unlikely that as a result of the warfare he has had, as he 
claims, for 29 years, with the Stock Exchange that fro^m his breast 
there has been extracted the milk of human kindness. It is not 
at all unlikely that he comes here before you, as I think he does, 
a man without much love, if he has any, and with very little 
sympathy ; but I believe still there is a sense of righteousness be- 
hind his appearance here. 

What motive, let me ask you, could possibly incite that man to 
come here and face the gruelling examination and to go through 
the trying ordeal which he has been compelled to face? What 
motive, I ask you, could have excited him to file his telegram with 
the Governor in which he made these charges and to have come up 
and to have brought his witnesses and bravely, courageously and 
defiantly met the Senator land give him battle ? 

I say reason alone must solve these questions, and applying the 
solvent of reason, why should he do all this? Enmity against 
Senator Stilwell, the man who had got his bills out of committee ! 
Enmitv toward him at a time when his triumph looked secure, 
when there was no occasion for fear, no occasion for coercion, 
when he had practically gotten all that Senator Stilwell could have 
given him ! Why should he have followed him at that moment 
with the spirit of revenge that has been so eloquently described 
here ? 

'No, you must look for a motive for doing all this, as you must 
look for rules of reason in solving it all. 

I want to thank you for the courtesy of the committee in per- 
mitting me to present this case and the Senate in hearing it; and 
I trust that in doing either or both I have not done any injustice 
to Senator Stilwell or any injustice to the cause that represents 
the other side of this most important question. 

Mr. Wilson. — Mr. President and Senators, I will occupy your 
time but a very few moments. In an environment and atmos- 
phere heavily charged with rumor and suspicion, I decline to be^ 
lieve that there is any Senator here whose vote is to be cast by any 
suggestion, by any newspaper enterprise, by any sentiments lat 
home or by any other consideration than his honest belief as to 
what the truth is in reference to the question that "the Judiciary 
Committee was called upon to investigate. 



603 

This I believe to be a tribunal as well as au iuvestigation, where 
you are going to pass upon the guilt or innocence, the truth or 
untruthfulness of these charges that are made against Senator 
Stilwell. If any other suggestion is to prevail here, then of what 
avail is an investigation ? Of what avail is this talk here ? 

I beg your pardon, gentlemen, for indulging in these remarks, 

but if it be true, as in another famous trial, that of the Duke of 

that if a trial is granted only after judgment of 

condemnation and the preparation of the grave, then you have not 

afforded so very much consolation. 

I had hoped not to speak here. My voice is such that it is 
pretty difficult to be heard and exceedingly unpleasant for joii to 
listen to. I want to thank the Attorney-General most sincerely 
for the courtesies that he has extended to myself and to my asso- 
ciate. Always courteous, always gentlem'anly, always a lawyer, 
and I think that Kendall, and Kendall's lawyer may also well 
extend to him their compliments because this investigation and 
this arg-ument to the Senate has been of a character so that Mr. 
Kendall at least can make no complaint and so efficiently delight- 
ful, both in protection and eulogy of Kendall, that his own attor- 
ney has not asked to say one word. 

And Senator Stilwell had a right to a fair investigation, an 
investigation of the charges contained in this verj remarkable 
telegram spread in a very remarkable way and promulgated 
throughout the public Press in a very remarkable way. He was 
forced to demand an investigation. He had a right to expect jus- 
tice, at least. He did not ask for mercy, but if he did, the only 
mercy that he found was between the stirrup and the ground. 
Xo favors have been shown to him before the conunittee. IN'o 
favors have been sho\vn to him here. He has been treated as if 
he were a malefactor, and every mysterious telegram, every 
particle of evidence that could be raked and scraped and bound 
together; every unfair inference, has been drawn against him, 
that would tend to prejudice the public mind or that would war- 
rant the infamous accusation that has been made against him. 

I thank the public Press for the fairness that they have extended 
to him, to the judgment that they have withheld and to the 
opinions that they have expressed. Was there any man when this 
evidence closed on Friday night and we went to our homes ; was 
there any paper in the broad State of Xew York ; was there any 
human beina: that read that evidence, who believed that there was 



604 

the slightest foimdatioii to convict this man on; and yet it is 
whispered in my ear that this man's grave is dug. 

I resent it. E'ow, one word. This man is accused of what? 
He is accused first of making a corrupt bargain and receiving 
$250 or $125 to draw a bill of which he was in favor. Who says 
he did it ? Kendall. Kendall is not only a bribe giver but 
Kendall is also a blackmailer out of his own mouth. 

Your first proposition of law, and I see much better lawyers 
here than I am, quite as old in business and quite as familiar with 
the statute, the first proposition is that you cannot convict a man 
on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice ; and your reso- 
lution says you will investig'ate this case according to the rules of 
justice and evidence that prevail in courts of record in this State. 

Will you do it ? We answer to somebody besides ourselves. We 
answer to the people in their homes ; we answer to the people in 
the Bronx where he lives; to him and his family; to the church; 
to the woman who knows him, to the children who know him ; to 
the community who time and time again have honored him with 
their votes. 

Who says he made a corrupt bargain ? Kendall. But before 
you can receive that evidence,. before it can be accepted in making 
up a judgment, you have got to corroborate Kendall. How is 
Kendall corroborated ? The presumption of innocence, the pre- 
sumption that the Senator is a man of fair character, must pre- 
vail until it is overthrown. 

He says he never told him so. Then at least the Senator does 
not corroborate him. 

Lewis says there is not a word of truth in his statement about 
his telling him that he was to be used simply for the purpose of 
sending the money to Stilwell. Therefore, he is not corroborated 
even by Stilwell or by Le^vis. 

You have the evidence of Marion, and I am surprised that it 
should be said, if you recall, that it was not entirely truthful. 
Mr. Lewis testifies he received that check as this man had 
promised. Kendall's letter says: 

'^ I enclose the check as I promised yesterday," and yet the 
old rascal did not send it until four days after he said he did. 

After he had it the boy went in there with a somewhat swelled 
head, with $250, and says: ^^ Marion, give me $10 and collect 
the check." 



605 

Marion gave liim tlie money and put it in an envelope and put 
it in a safe. The evidence is that he first got $20, $10 on two 
occasions. He drew $100 and sent $50 to his wife and paid back 
what he borrowed and he was practically two weeks drawing the 
money out of there. 

What are you going to say ? That Senator Stilwell got the 
money? The whole argument of the Attorney-General that 
Senator Stilwell got the money is built up on the whole propo- 
sition that a loose tongued boy called in Senator AYagiier's office 
in the presence of Mr. Kendall and, asked if he got this money, 
said, ^' Yes, I got it. It was worth it, wasn't it, Mr. Kendall ? " 

Mr. Kendall said, '' Yes, I am entirely satisfied with you, if 
you got it, and not someone else." 

Senator Wagner never asked him any questions, except if he 
charged him $250 to draw the bill, " You gave it to Senator Stil- 
well " and this same fresh young man replied, referring either to 
Mr. Kendall or Senator Wagner, ^' You will at least give me the 
credit of retaining one-half of it." 

That is what he said. It is out of that, it is out of that sort 
of talk that this man is charged with bribery. It seems to me that 
if you follow the rules of evidence, your whole argument is gone. 
The foundations are take out from under your whole structure, 
because if you believe that he was not bribed by that $250, you 
can construct no bribery anywhere after that. 

Remember this, not one single human being that ever heard 
this man — I will be entirely willing to stop whenever the Senate 
shall wish, because I don't want to trespass upon joiir time — 
this man Field, this other self of Kendall, stood at his side and 
at his knee every minute ; and this man Field is a good deal more 
truthful than Kendall ; he is responsible for his acts ; he is the man 
that makes these things up; he is the man that helped Lewis 
frame this bill; he is the man that stood at the telephone when 
they drove the stenographer away from the telephone and had him 
fix up the conversation — Vv^hen the Senators asked him, some one 
of them ^^ Did you in any of these conversations ever hear Mr. 
Stilwell sav that he had received any money ? 

"'No. ^ ^ '-"'^^T- 

" Did you ever hear him demand any money ? 

" E'o. 

" Did you ever hear him make any admission that he had ever 
received, or any claim that he ever wanted any ? 

" ISTo." 



606 

There is not one single scintilla of evidence in this record, ex- 
cept the nnsiipported declaration of this man, this Innatic. 

You can account for this case and this evidence only on one of 
two theories. One is that Mr. Kendall is a miserable scoundrel, 
and the other is that he is a lunatic. We cannot prove he v^as a 
scoundrel. We did not think it v^as worth while to prove he was 
a lunatic, because you had all seen him ; and I have reached the 
conclusion that he is neither one nor the other, but he is a com- 
bination of the two. 

'Now, the Attorney-General and I have tried cases before and 
I hope that he will not think that I am in 'any way reflecting 
upon him, because I have no such purpose. He could do no 
better than he did do. 

What a strange proceeding we had in what the Governor did! 
But how could he do any different ? Here was a man that he had 
met time and time again ; a man who had been before the Pujo 
Committee for nine days in Washington, with Field by his side ; 
who had testified at great length, trying to secure an international 
law or a congressional law to incorporate the Stock Exchange, and 
as he testified and I put it in evidence here, they told him to go 
home to his own State. 

He came here and saw the Governor. He went over these 
matters. He was interested in them because he was one of the 
men who had been -oppressed by the Stock Exchange and the 
American Bank l^ote Company. 

Thereafter he sends a telegram to the Governor: 

'^ I furnish you evidence that the man that you sent me to to 
draw my bill," which the Governor never had done, but sent him 
there simply to talk with him — 

^' charged me $250. I offer you evidence that he demanded $500 
apiece for four members of the Codes Committee of the Senate, 
$1,500 for the members of the Assembly Committee; and I offer 
you other evidence by which it appears that the Stock Exchange 
has been here v^ith barrels of money and is killing your bills." 

The Governor sends for him and he goes into his office; and 
here is this crank writing these various charges — he will write 
them against every one of you if you don't do his bidding; he 
will do just what he threatened to do; he will put a banner over 
on the People's House and another on the Capitol saying that 
everybody is dishonest; that everybody is crooked, and he verily 



607 

believes that; I think the man verily believes that. You are 
dealing with a lunatic. How do you explain it ? I explain it by 
saying you are dealing with a disordered man; a man who for 
thirty years has dwelt on one subject. 

You remember I think when he sat down and got up, and I 
said, '^ For Heaven's sake, I don't care whether you sit do^vn or 
stand up, if you only will answer," he looked over the room, his 
eyes filled with tears, his voice was husky and his sentences were 
disconnected; there was every evidence that this man was a 
paranoiac, and about on the verge of breaking down. 

Why not tell the truth about some of these things; not a re- 
porter there but what observed it ; not a man upon the Committee 
but what saw him. They know whether I am giving a fair de- 
scription of him. 

It is upon that evidence you will say, you will not only destroy 
the character of this man but his wife and beautiful girls and 
send them an outcast, out into the night, into outer darkness. 

If you will follow me a single moment, he had been down to 
Washington, for what purpose ? To see if he could not in some 
way get a bill passed or aid in the passage of a bill that would 
compel the Stock Exchange to incorporate, so it could sue and be 
sued. I put into this case here one book, a record that he would 
bring an action against 1,100 different men belonging to the Stock 
Exchange, 1,100 men sued, and I think it was Senator Thompson, 
I don't know him but I am quite sure it was he, that said to him : 

" Why don't you wait until you see what the determination of 
your case is ? How long vAW that be ?" 

He said : 

" Well, they have made a demand on me for a bill of particu- 
lars. I have worked for six months constantly with my force of 
employees on those bills of particulars. I have now reached 4,000 
items, all of which involve an abstruse mathematical calculation. 
I am not able to say when I shall have my bill of particulars 
completed, but I will say to you gentlemen that my action is not 
worth one single picayune. I am so advised by the best legal 
talent in ]Srew York city and the Court of Appeals have also 
decided." 

Is he a bug ? I will withdraw that, please. Is this man insane ? 
Is he a monomaniac, a man that prepares a law suit against 1,100 
men, that draws a bill of particulars of 4,000 items, that pays out 



608 

thousands of dollars in litigation, and then turns around before 
your own Committee^ remember, either the Codes or the Joint 
Committee, some of you remember, and says : 

'^ While I know it ain't worth a thing, I am going to keep at 
them." 

And he said, you will remember, before the Joint Committee, he 
said : 

'' I tried to sue the association, and they said I could not. I 
sued the committee and they beat me. I sued the president and 
they said I could not do that. They said I had to sue them all," 

and he said, 

'' By the eternal gods, I sued them all." 

There is the kind of gentleman j^ou are dealing with. 

In answer to the Attorney-General — bear in mind what this 
man is trying to accomplish is the bill to incorporate the Stock 
Exchange. That is a bill before the Judiciary Committee. He 
said he wanted that bill made a penal statute, making them guilty 
of a misdemeanor if they did not obey that law and also giving 
him, the party aggrieved, — and he says he is an aggrieved party, 
a right of action at the rate of a thousand dollars a day, one-half 
to the State Treasurer and one-half to him. That shows what he 
told Lewis about drawing this bill and knowing so much about it, 
that he would make him his attorney. 

Without these eleven bills known as the Stock Exchange bills, 
without their going through, this bill that Senator Stilwell was 
working so hard to get through, because he believed in it, — it is 
all right except the amendment — what got this man angry at 
Senator Stilwell ? 

Men don't act without motives. I will tell you briefly. This 
man had been three times before your Committees. The first 
time he had gone before the Codes Committee in the Senate, where 
they were not considering his bill, so as to outline what he wanted. 
IsTobody could understand what this man wanted. He would talk 
you to death and then he would talk to you after you were dead, 
so as to punish you. Before the Committee on Judiciary, or the 
Joint Committee, he was the last one to speak. There were nine 
bills being considered all together. He was the last one to speak 
in favor of the bills. 



609 

Mr. got up and said in the record, which we have 

introduced here, that if this man should utter any malicious lies 
about them that thej Avould like the privilege of filing a brief. 

Shortly after he appeared before the Senate Codes Committee. 
The Stock Exchange or their attorneys were notified that he was 
to speak. He came there. They put in no opposition, but they 
filed a brief which was a statement similar to the one they had 
filed before the Judiciary Committee or the Joint Committee. 

When they went away they said again that they thought the 
well-known character of this man, the viciousness of his attacks, 
his utter disregard for truth, if he should repeat them, they 
wanted an opportunity to file a brief. The Senators said to them 
that there wouldn't be time, and you gentlemen were on that 
Committee; you know whether he is lying or telling the truth, 
that there v/ouldn't be time because it would delay the matter for 
a week or so and they wanted to close that hearing, but if he 
wanted to file a memorandum, in the nature of a letter or memo- 
randum, they v\'ould receive it. That is the letter we have put in, 
the whole letter, not simply these extracts. Some of you Senators 
I hope will read it. When he went over to his office the first thing 
they said is, there is no brief. Don't you see you could call it a 
brief or not a brief? You could take it either way you had a 
mind to. 

One thing further, to demonstrate that what I am saying is 
the absolute truth, and right here occurs just why he got mad at 
Stilwell and why he charged him with being corrupt, and here 
is where he had such a hard time taking the hurdles. 

You will find on pages 38 and 39, if you care to look at it : 

" Q. What took place between you ? A. I met him as I was 
entering the street door, went with him in the elevator to his place 
of business. We entered his private office and he shut the door 
and I said to him, ^ There is no brief,' and he said, ^ I know that.' 

" Mr. Wilson. — We do not get his language, whether he said, 
' There is no brief,' or ' This is no brief.' " 

There was only one point there, I wanted to be sure whether he 
was telling it as he heard it, whether he says there is no brief, 
or this is no brief. There had been two briefs already filed, both 
in evidence here. 

"Attorney-General Carmody. — ' There is no brief,' he said." 



610 

Senator Stilwell says that he came to his office. He told him 
if there was a brief he woukl let him know. He said to him, there 
is no brief. 

" One or the other of us said, ' there is no brief/ and he replied 
after that, ^ I don't know which said it.' 

'^ Mr. -Wilson. — Suppose he waits until he recalls whether — " 
We have got down now where any attorney knows you want to 
have this man select his language and think what he is saying. 

'^Attorney-General Carmody. — I suggest counsel waits until 
the witness gets a chance to state. 

" The Chairman. — Let the witness state it in his own way. 

'' Q. Do you now recall whether you stated, ' There is no brief,' 
or whether Senator Stilwell stated, ' There is no brief ' ? A. I 
do not." 

There goes your brief question, and yet a mountain is made out 
of that mole hill. I said it was in the beginning of the con- 
versation. 

Let me call your attention to something else. This is after he 
had said that he had tried to bribe, that this man had tried to 
extort money from him. 

^' I said to him, ' Is there not another Committee on Codes on 
the other side of the House of the Assembly ? ' And he said, 
'Yes, there is another Committee there,' " — 

as if he had never heard of it before ! 

''And I said, ' Would that include the House side of reporting 
it out ? ' He said, ' 'No, and it might cost you something.' " 

I allege that w^hatever conversation he had in that connection he 
was not talking about the bill that was before Senator Stilwell's 
Committee, the Senate Committee on Codes, but he was talking 
about the bill in which he v/as infinitely more interested, to wit, 
the Stock Incorporation bill before the Judiciary Committee. 

i'Sow, unfortunately, if you will re?xl the evidence at pages 38 
and 39, unfortunately 'Senator Stilwell said to him, 

" I am not for that bill. 
" Well, what is going to be done with it ? 

" It will be reported out of the committee, but it will be killed 
on the floor." 



611 

What will be killed on the floor ? The bill that Senator Stilwell 
wants $2,000 for himself and $1,500 for the Assembly? Is that 
the bill that is to be killed ? ]^o, it is the Stock Exchange bill, 
and the evidence shows it. He tried to mix up the conversations 
in reference to that bill and make it apply to this one. It is 
pretty important, you see. 

From that moment on the dogs of war were released. Ho said 
to Mr. Stilwell, as his own evidence shows, he attempted then to 
accuse the Stock Exchange of talking about barrels of money ; 
says, '' I cannot go into competition with the Stock Exchange. If 
this means money for me to go into the Stock Exchange, then I 
may as well abandon it." 

He admits that Senator Stilwell told him, he swore to it at 
least three times, that he was not for that incorporation bill. 

" Your bill will go through all right," but that bill was abso- 
lutely useless to him unless there was also passed the stock incor- 
poration bill. 

He says, cogitating the matter over, I think I will let you know 
any way that there is some hearsay evidence of the Stock Exchange 
using barrels of money to defeat the incorporation bill. I am 
willing to tell you at least what Senator Stilwell told me. He and 
'Senator Stilwell never had but one conversation. Senator Stil- 
Tvell told him he did not believe the bill would be enacted into 
law. From that time on this man charged Senator Stilwell not 
with wanting money to pass the so-called bill in restraint of trade, 
but what he expected and what he meant to charge was that the 
Stock Exchange had bought upon the Judiciary Committee and 
even though they reported it out it would be killed on the floor 
of this legislature. 

I will take no more time. You will understand that we were 
ten or twelve days taking this evidence. This is not an easy man 
to get along with. He has been following and pursuing this same 
delusion. He scared everybody to death. I hope not everybody, 
he has not scared me to death yet, I am still alive though pretty 
badly broken up. Here he was before the Governor with a bundle 
of papers, claiming he had the evidence here to show that four 
members of the Codes Committee were corrupt and wanted 
money, and three members of the Assembly Committee. Whaf 
should the Governor have done? He should have done just what 
he did do. He should have seized his papers. He said he did 
not want to give them up. The Governor did right in getting 



612 

up there, the Attorney-General did right — when they seized those 
papers. What did they find in them ? 

They found, written by this girl on a typewriter with a purple 
ribbon what purported to be a conversation between S'enator Stil- 
well and him in which he had jacked Stilwell up to force through 
the legislature this bill that had already come out of the com- 
mittee. 

When he was asked how did it happen that you had Stihvell 
on the 'phone in that conversation that you had this competent 
stenographer, and a beautiful girl at that, although innocent girls 
are somtimes easily mislead by suggestion to say things that are 
not so, without knowing the effect of it, why didn't you, when you 
had this competent stenographer on the wire connected with 
Stilwell, taking in shorthand as fast as he could talk, why did you 
drive her away from that 'phone and make her hang up, which 
she swears she did ; and Kendall immediately took it down and 
started an entirely different conversation, because she says that 
what Stilwell said was : 

^' I have seen the party and everything is going to be all right," 
which simply related to his having seen Mr. McGrath, chairman 
of the Assembly Committee. He had seen McGrath and asked 
him as chairman of that committee, told him he thought the bill 
was all right, but they would not stand for the amendment. Her 
evidence, which is in the record, absolutely corroborates 'Senator 
Stilwell. 

When I asked him, 

" Why did you take her away from this 'phone when you could 
have had an absolute record of a conversation that could not have 
been denied ? " 

''■ Because," he said, '' there would have been some person like 
you who by intimidation and scaring," — gentlemen, I will leave 
it to this committee who were there, if I didn't, down to the time 
I handed her the paper, treat her with utmost courtesy, with not 
the slightest idea of embarrassing her or the slightest idea of in 
any way intimidating or confusing her ? What happened ? 

^^ Mr. Byrne (examining) " — 

they had her on the stand and testified that, this girl — I will 
complete what I started to say — after they had taken the conver- 
sation, gone into the stenographer's room, then they dictated, not 
what Senator Stilwell said, but what they said and what they 



613 

claimed Senator Stilwell said and they had her take that do^vn as 
a stenographer. They could not afford to let her take it over the 
'phone, with Senator Stilwell 150 miles away, it might confuse 
her. They dictated that conversation to this girl and had her 
write it out and transcribe it on a typewriter with a purple rib- 
bon. That is the paper that is in the possession of the Attorney- 
General. That is the paper that was seized by the Governor of 
the State of 'New York. That is the paper in the interview that 
was published in the New York Sun of the 3rd day of April, 1913. 

About the girl, she took the stand and simply identified this 
conversation. As the Attorney-General well says, the conversation 
was of no importance. It wasn't, but they were all willing, and 
Mr. Kendall will swear to something, and then to corroborate 
himself he will begin by corroborating something that nobody can 
contradict, and that is of no importance. 

For instance, he says, ^' I called Senator Stilwell up on the 
'phone and talked with him." 

Senator Stilwell says, yes, I had a conversation with him that 
day. Then they put Field on the stand to swear that he was on 
the third floor, that Mrs. Fleiderer heard the telephone and went 
for Field. And Miss AUen, his little stenographer — and there 
are only three in the whole affair, that is, Field and his cousin, 
Mr. Kendall and Miss Allen. They said, who is on the 'phone? 
Mr. 'Stilwell. Then that very peculiar precaution, 

" How did you know it was Senator Stilwell ?" " Because I 
heard his voice here this morning and I recognized it as the one 
I heard." 

She had just testified before that that she had paid no atten- 
tion to the conversation ; that she was just asked to get to the 
'phone long enough until Mr. Field could get there; and yet she 
is certain from looking at Senator Stilwell in the court room 
three weeks after the conversation occurred that she could recog- 
nize his as the very man's voice that she head over the telephone. 

I was alm^ost immediately called to the rail where three ladies 
sat. If you doubt my word I am willing to give names. They 
are willing to be called, if it has become a question of my fair- 
ness to this little girl. One had written out what she heard this 
man say to this girl. She heard him say precisely that ; he went 
to the rail and said that is Senator Stilwell sitting down. She 
said yes, I thought so. She had been in court five days. He says 
now you can say the one you heard at the telephone was Senator 



614 

Stilwell. She says, supposing they ask me how I know it is 
Senator Stilwell, what will I say? He says, you will say you 
recognize the voice that you heard here to-day as the voice that 
you heard over the telephone. 

If it had been in a court of justice and been proved, this gentle- 
man would not have disseminated any further lies and scandal 
but he would have been promptly passed over to the District At- 
torney for indictment for subornation of perjury. 

The mystery of the paper is this, I wrote out in my own hand- 
writing just what that conversation was so that the girl should 
have ample time to think. I handed it to her. I then handed it 
to the Attorney-General. I did not lose the paper. 1 put it in 
my pocket and then lost it. I thought one of the newspaper boys 
had it as a matter of fact. 

She read it over. She had the precise questions put by the 
Chair. I then asked her after 15 minutes and she sat there and 
declined to answer. 

Your lawyers can understand very easily if she said yes, that 
she did testify at his solicitation that she was guilty of perjury. 
She testified she did not. Then if I had gone and put the ladies 
on the stand — one of them at least was the wife of a member of 
that Committee — I did not feel justified in forcing the issue as 
far as that, whether I was right or wrong. The paper was written 
by myself and there was no significance to it excepting she might 
say just what I was going to ask her. 

You may say I am making something out of it. I think I have 
as much right to discuss that as they have that famous telegram of 
words without any meaning. 

Of course the girl was excused and then he took the stand, but 
not until he had half an hour to make up his explanation, and 
then he said, if you bring the girl back, and it is in the record, 
you will have her fainting in this chair. 

I will take no more time. We have every confidence in the" 
gentlemen of this Senate. I believe this is a matter each one of 
you will answer to your own individual conscience and not the 
effect it will have on your future. Some men I see before me 
whom I know would sacrifice their lives before they would un- 
justly expel a brother from this Senate. Take the case and deal 
with it as you would be dealt with if some lunatic had made 
these charges against you, unsubstantiated or corroborated except 
by himself. Try this case by the rules of evidence as adopted in 
courts of record and then you have no evidence at all. 



615 

Mr. Bvnie. — I merely wanted to call the attention of the Sena- 
tors to page 416, so that they could have it before ttiem for the 
purpose of knowing what the ' language was that was used by 
Lewis regarding the money. This was in Senator Wagner's office, 
at about the center of the page (reading) : 

'^ Q. Did you say you gave half to Senator Stilwell ? A. I 
used language that could be — 

^' Q. Did you say that ? A. In — yes, I said that. 

'" Q. Did. somebody say there or ask you if you didn't give it 
all to Senator Stilwell ? A. Yes. 

" Q. And did you say in reply to that, ' You migtit at least 
give me credit for keeping half of it V A. Yes." 

Senator Stilwell. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the Twenty-first. 

Senator Stilwell. — I don't know what the majority or the 
minority are going to do, whether they are going to take a recess 
or not, but I would like very much to have a word to say before 
this vote is taken. I w^ant to say that I was not here because of a 
misapprehension to-day. A little after ten o'clock I understood 
the matter was to be taken up to-morrow, but when I neard it was 
to be taken up to-day I immediately came up here. But before 
the vote is to be taken I at least wanted a half hour to speak, and 
I think I ought to have that. This is a very very serious matter 
to me, and I think I ought to have the attention of the Senate 
that length of time. 

(Some inaudible discussion here ensued between the Senators 
on the floor of the Chamber.) 

Senator Wagner. — Mr. President, I am just trying to get the 
consensus of opinion of the Senators. I am perfectly willing to 
do wdiatever is agreeable. 

(Further inaudible discussion here ensued between the Senators 
on the floor of the Senate Chamber.) 

Senator Wagner. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the Sixteenth. 

Senator Murtaugh. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the Forty-first. 

Senator Wagner. — Mr. President. 



616 

The President. — The Senator from the Sixteenth. 

Senator Wagner. — Any procedure that we take, I want to have 
it done by unanimous consent. !N"ow, the chairman of the Com- 
mittee having this matter in charge and the minority leader, I 
understand, agree upon — 

Senator- Brown (interrupting). — In view of the request of the 
Senator from the Twenty-first, I agree to an adjournment to half 
past eight. 

Senator Wagner. — Then I move a recess until 8 :30', when there 
Avill be — I was going to say, Mr. President, I hope it will not 
be necessary to have a call of the house in order to have any 
member present — to produce any member who may be absent at 
that time, and I hope that every Senator will at that hour be in 
his seat. 

The President. — The Senate stands in recess until 8 :30 p. m. 

AT 6 :50 P. M. A RECESS WAS TAKEI^ LWTIL 8 :30 P. M. 



AETER RECESS, 8:30 P. M. 

The President. — The Senate will come to order. 

Senator Stilwell. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the Twenty-first. 

Senator Stilwell. — Members of the Senate : I did not expect 
to rise on my feet and address this Senate in my own defense. I 
did expect to be here when the summing up took place, but I was 
misled as to the time and the hour until I received a telephone 
from my counsel, and I hurried as fast as I could to Albany. I 
am therefore in a somewhat difficult position. I know not what 
has been said by the counsel, but I do feel, Mr. President, and I 
hope the Senate will bear with me if I reiterate or go over some of 
the testimony which has already been spoken of. 

I want to say this, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Senate : 
That if I thought I was guilty, or if I felt that I was guilty, or 
that I had done anything wrong, I would not stand in this Cham- 
ber and face the members of this Senate and speak to them in my 
own defense. 



617 

I know my conscience tells me that I am innocent, and the God 
above me knows that I am innocent. You may convict me, you 
may expel me from this floor, but the Almighty above me knows 
that I am as innocent as any man that is sitting here that is going 
to judge me of this crime. 

And let me say, Mr. President, while the evidence may be 
somewhat against me so far as one witness is concerned, and one 
only, I claim there is no corroboration of any testimony that is 
materially affected so far as a bribery charge is concerned. 

Let me call your attention for a moment to the testimony of my 
accuser, a man that everybody in the city of Xew York, aye, not 
only in the city and State, but outside of the confines of the State 
of Isew York, knows that his w^ord is not worthy of belief, and 
that he has denounced men of character, men of standing in the 
community as thieves, bribers and blackmailers. Let me say to 
you that when he comes here and tells you that I asked of him 
money for the purpose of having a bill voted out of committee, 
he tells what is untrue, because never did it pass my lips that I 
asked a man for two thousand dollars or fifteen hundred dollars, 
whatever he may call it. E'ever. 

My relationship with the accuser began on the 13th day of 
Feibruary, late in the afternoon, as I was leaving for E'ew York 
city. As you have heard in the testimony, and it is not contra- 
dicted, he says the Governor sent him in to see me in re- 
gard to a matter which affected his business in the city of 
ISTew York; and it is admitted that we hadn't time to go 
over the matter, and I invited him to come before the com- 
mittee the following Wednesday and I would ask the com- 
mittoe to give him a hearing to lay the entire matter before 
them. I did not wish to take it up individually with 
him. I did not wish to try to force him out of money. Had 
I had some ulterior motive for the purpose of getting money out 
of that man, would I have asked him to come before the Codes 
Committee and explain to the full Committee the reasons that he 
had for coming to Albany and seeing the Governor ? I never 
attempted to do anything in secret with him. I call upon every 
member of the Codes Coiumittee of the Senate to verify this state- 
ment, that I asked him publicly before that Committee to make 
his explanation as to what he wanted, and then the Committee 
asked me as the chairman if I wouldn't take it up with him. 
]N"othing was secret, nothing underhanded, open and aboveboard 



618 

the entire transaction. And because my Committee asked me to 
take it up with him, I did so, and the testimony shows that we 
talked the matter over. 

He says that I wanted to get five hundred dollars for drawing 
a bill. He told me when I asked him — when he asked me. 
First he asked me if I would not draw a bill for him. and I told 
him I had no time to do that, I couldn't do it, that my legislative 
duties would not permit of such a thing; then he asked me, as 
my testimony under oath shows, if I wouldn't do it as a lawyer 
and charge him for it; and I told him, no; that I wouldn't do any- 
thing of that kind ; he then asked me if I had a partner in busi- 
ness, and I told him yes, and he wanted to know if I couldn't do 
it and have my partner charge for it, and I refused it; and I 
suggested to him that he should have his lawyers in New York 
city do it ; he said the}^ didn't understand drawing legislation, 
bills of that character. '' Well," I says, ^' you come from the 
Governor to me. Why don't you go back to the Governor and get 
a letter from him to the bill drafting department, men who have 
had experience, lawyers who have been drafting bills for years, 
and if they can't do it nobody can." He says, '^ I am afraid, I 
am afraid that the thieves in Wall street will get next to the bill 
drafting department, or someone in there connected with it, and 
they may put a joker into it." 

That is what led up to it. And he asked me if I didn't know 
someone, and I told him the only one I knew was a young man 
who had done things for me at times, drawn bills, was a young 
man who had served two years in the bill drafting department, 
who is a revision clerk, and if he wanted to have him do it, all 
right. He says — the question came up, he wanted to pay me 
the money for it — he says, " I will give you two hundred and 
fifty dollars for drawing the bill." I never asked him for five 
hundred dollars or any dollars. I absolutely refused at all times of 
having anything to do with it ; but I told him that if he would get 
his bill and bring it to the Codes Committee or to me, I would in- 
troduce it for him. Then the question came up about Mr. Lewis.- 
I told him there was a young man who had had experience, who 
was in the law business, and if he wanted to do it, and Kendall 
wanted to pay, I would talk to him about it and see what could be 
done, doing this because the Governor had sent him to me, trying 
to help the man in every way and at the same time help the 
young man who had done a lot of favors in drafting bills for me 
and looking over the revision of bills. 



619 

At no time did I ever ask Kendall for one dollar^ nor was it 
ever tliouglit of that I was going to get a dollar ; because I had 
told him on two or three occasions that under no conditions was 
I to be considered so far as the tv/o hundred and fifty dollars was 
concerned; that I didn't want anything to do with that; that was 
a matter between him and Mr. Lewis. 

The fact is that he sent the check to' Mr. Lewis in Mr. Lewis' 
name, endorsed by Mr. Lewis, and cashed by Mr. Lewis at the 
Stanwix Llotel in Albany. And the evidence shows here, and it 

is uncontradicted — I don't care what criticism may be made 

but the evidence is uncontradicted that he got that check cashed 
at the Stanwix Hotel, that the clerk, Mr. Marion I think it was, 
a man that had been in the business for twenty years right here 
in Albany, a clerk in that hotel for six years, since it has been 
opened, a man that the people here in Albany knew ; and he swore 
on that stand that he got the check cashed for Sam Lewis, that 
he put the two hundred and Mtj dollars in the envelope and put 
it in his safe ; that when Mr. Lewis came up he offered it to him 
and Lewis says, '' I am afraid to take so much money ; keep the 
money in there ;" and he took out certain amounts, and it took 
two weeks before he drew it out; he kept it in the safe; and he 
says at no one time, excepting once, was there taken out more 
than tv/enty dollars, and once I think w^as a hundred dollars, 
which he sent to his wife. So that it shows it was a physical im- 
possibility for this man Lewis to have paid me two hundred and 
fifty dollars or one hundred and twenty-five of that two hundred 
and fifty dollars. 

ISTow, I say upon evidence of that character, uncontradicted — 
and I don't care what Lewis said, or am^one else, because I am 
not bound by what Lewis said. If Lewis said that I committed 
murder, am I guilty of the crime because he says it ? x\m I to be 
hung because someone else says I -did a certain thing? 

Tlie evidence here is, and Mr. Marion is not contradicted, that 
the money was cashed there and taken out in small amounts, and 
never over one hundred, and mostly every time ten and twenty 
dollars, and it took two weeks to spend the money. ^ 

Xovv^, I submit, Mr. President and gentlemen, that that abso- 
lutely shows that I never received one dollar, and I say I never 
did receive one dollar of the two hundred and fifty dollars. Mr. 
Lewis never handed me one dollar of the tw^o hundred and fifty 
dollars, and if anvbodv savs so thev tell an untruth. 



620 

'Now, let us see wliat is the further statement, what else is there 
to this case? One thing more and that is that on the 24th day 
of March, Kendall swears he came to mj office in the city of E'ew 
York and that there and then I, without saying a word hardly, 
asked him for two thousand dollars. 

IsToWj I ,ask you men, and you are all business men with good 
common sense, do you remember what Kendall said? He says 
I met him at the door, at the street door, and went up in the 
elevator with him, went in his room and in the private room we 
had a talk. He says the moment the door was closed ^^ I said or 
Stilwell said there is no brief." 

ISTo-jv, do you believe that was the first word that was ever said, 
'^ there is no brief ?" And I said, '' You know there is none, and 
he immediately asked me for money." If you believe that, if you 
can consistently believe that that was the statement — the first 
statement he made or that I made, I would like to know how a 
man, who came there in response to a letter which he says I sent 
him, in which I referred to a bill — an amendment and the brief, 
the first thing he would say when he met me, '^ There is no brief, 
and I said you know it." When Kendall said that, he knew he 
told an untruth. 

Vv^hy he went on to say there was no reason — that there was no 
reason for him to come to my office. He says there was no brief, 
and yet there is his own letter book, his own letter book, on the 
20th, the day before I wrote him the letter, a telegram was sent 
by him to me asking about this brief. I have forgotten, but I 
knew there was some reason for that, and I had it looked up in 
my records and couldn't find a thing, but right in the letter book 
of Kendall's was the telegram he sent to me asking me about the 
Milburn brief. And it Vv^as in reply to that telegram, and enclos- 
ing this bill, that I wrote the letter on the 21st. And let us see 
what it says here, whether I decoyed this man into my office for 
the purpose of bribing him (reading) : 

^'After speaking to you the other day about the civil suit, I 
looked up the law bearing on the matter, and am satisfied it can 
be accomplished by adding a new section Avhich I have added to 
the enclosed bill." 

And in that letter was enclosed a bill, 1188, a single bill with 
an interlineation showing how it might be amended so that he 
could bring a civil suit and get a thousand dollars a day for every 



621 

action that he brought against any exchange who disobeyed this 
law. Further (reading) : 

" I will be at my office, 261 Broadway, Monday next, at three 
p. M., if you desire to see me about a brief." 

I didn't say to Kendall '' Meet me at my office, I have a brief; 
meet me at my office, I want to see you." But I says, '^ If you 
desire to see me, I will be there." He didn't have to come to my 
office. I didn't know whether he wanted to see me or not. But 
it was so important that he telegraphed me the day before I wrote 
this letter, regarding this brief. That is to say, he says there is 
no brief, and I said, " 'No, there is no brief," and on the stand he 
said the same thing. And yet his letter book shows that it was 
so important that he telegraphed me the day before asking me 
about it. 

iSTow, that is the testimony of the man. And then he says that" 
I immediately got doAvn to business and asked him for two thou- 
sand dollars to deliver the bill out of the Committee, and that he 
asked me how much it would cost to take it out of the Assembly 
Committee, that it was no use to him unless he had both Com- 
mittees, and that I told him that I would find out and let him 
know. 

I want to say to you members of this Senate, Mr. President, 
that when he made that remark, when he so testified, he told one 
of the biggest lies that was ever told. The only thing that w^as 
ever spoken about outside of this amendment to that bill and the 
brief was the stock incorporation bill, and that he did refer to, 
and he asked me whether or not that bill would go through and I 
told him I didn't think so, that I thought the members were op- 
posed to that bill, that I understood a poll had been taken of the 
Committee and there was only two in favor of it, and I told him 
I was opposed to the bill, and I told himi my reason for being op- 
posed to the bill, I told him I didn't think the bill would accom- 
plish that w^hich its friends thought it would, I told him I was 
opposed to the bill for further reasons, because it would permit a 
seat to be sold to anybody at public auction, that the biggest scamp 
in the world, if he had the money, could come in and buy that 
seat and become ipso facto a member of that exchange, and that 
was one of the very things we were trying to prevent. And he 
said, '^ Oh, we must have the incorporation bill, that is the most 
important thing, because if they are incorporated I can sue them ; 



622 

to-day I can't sue them ; I have got a suit, but it is no good ; it has 
cost me thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars;" and 
he says, " That bill ought to go through." And he was talking 
about that bill. And I says, '' I don't think it has got a chance 
to go through." And the conversation that day was mainly on 
that bill ;• he said he was satisfied with it and the other didn't 
amount to much ; but the incorporation bill was the feature of his 
conversation. And then I left him and came to Albany. 

^ow, the conversation — there was another conversation there 
that I have almost forgotten, and that was upon a bill in the As- 
sembly Chamber. He says, "After I got through; talking to your 
committee the other night I only had a fev/ minutes and I went 
up to the Assembly Committee and spoke for five or ten minutes, 
but it wa.s very unsatisfactory," and he says, " I v/ould like to have 
each member of the Assembly Committee of the Assembly get a 
copy of the stenographic minutes," and he asked me if I knew 
how many there was, I told him I did not. " Well," he says, 
" will you send me a telegram with the nimiber of the members of 
the Committee, and then send me the names and addresses of them, 
so that I can send up and get the stenographic minutes, and when 
I get your letter it wdll be in time to mail them to them." Those 
were the w^ords, he said as he was going out of my office, and I 
promised him I would do it. 

^ow, they make so much of this telegram " fifteen is the cor- 
rect number." Let me say, Mr. President and gentlemen of the 
Senate, I sat right in this chair here the very next day when the 
matter came to my mind — we often forget these things, we have 
so many things — but as I was sitting here it came to me that I 
had forgotten to telegraph him. I wrote the telegram on this 
desk and sent it to the clerk and had it charged to the State and 
the boy sent it through the regular office. I don't think that any- 
body wdio knows me thinks that I am a fool or thinks that I would 
sent a telegram of that character imless the matter was perfectly 
legitimate, honest, open and aboveboard. If I was doing what 
Kendall said I w^as, if I was sending the telegram stating that 
fifteen meant fifteen hundred dollars, I must be the biggest fool 
that walks the streets of the State of 'New York to have sent a 
telegram under those conditions. The very fact that it was sent 
publicly, stamped by the clerk, charged to the State, shows there 
was nothing that I thought wrong at the time I sent it. And I 
can assure you that I sent that as I did any other telegram for the 
purpose of doing what he asked me to do, and I did it. 



623 

Xow, lie sajs following that telegram of mine — I will take 
these up as we go along and answer him — that he telegraphed me 
words to this effect as I recollect them^ '' Five for thing as law 
better than present — " words to that effect — '' present uncertain- 
ties." Now, he says he sent me that telegram, unsigned, no name 
to it. And they proved a telegram of that character reached here 
and reached the Senate Chamber. I want to say that that tele- 
gram never reached me, whatever may have become of it. The 
telegram may have been put in my post office box or may have 
been laid on the desk below in my room. But any telegram or 
letters that come without any names to them are always thrown 
in the waste basket, and I don't know anyone else who would do 
otherwise, because you can't answer anonymous letters, nor a tele- 
gram when there is no name attached to it, and no attention would 
ever be paid to them. But I say that I never received it. If I 
had I would have said somebody was crazy, langaiage of that kind, 
but what become of it I don't know, but so far as I recollect I 
never saw such a telegram. I^ow, he says that telegram was de- 
livered about 3:05 in the afternoon. At 4:47 or two hours after- 
wards, he says I called him up because I got that telegram two 
hours before, and the reason I called him up at 4:47 was to 
answer the telegram of 3 :05, that I knew what the telegram was 
and what it meant. Well, anybody that can read that telegram 
and knows wdiat it meant or thinks he knows what it meant is a 
fit freak for a museum and no other place, because there ain't 
nobody who knows v^hat it meant. 

Mr. President, I did call him at 4:47 or thereabouts, I won't 
say exactly, 5 o'clock, somewhere along there, after the session 
v/as over; but it w^as in regard to the letter or a brief that Mr. 
^lilburn had sent that day, and it was something like that: he had 
asked me if there w^as anything further said or done or filed by 
Mr. Milburn's firm, if I would let him know. I called him up 
because this answ^ered the very statement he had filed after his 
argument before the committee wherein he said that so many 
members of the I^ew York Stock Exchange are stockholders in 
the American Note Company — Bank Note Company, and this 
letter showed that he was wrong, and that he tried to deceive the 
committee, mislead the committee, and had used language which 
was very deceitful. And I merely called him up and told him. and 
read him some portions of it, and told him what it was. It didn't- 
last three minutes, the conversation didn't. 



624 

If I am charged with anything at all it is hecanso I did too 
much for the man, too much for him. But I thought I was doing 
right. The Governor had sent him to me and I wanted to he fair 
with him. ^N^ot only because I wanted to be fair with him, hut 
may be because I had an ulterior motive, and that ulterior 
motive was that I had a bill which was passed last year for 
Bronx county and an appeal had been taken, it was in the Court 
of Appeals; in the first court we won, in the second court we lost, 
and there was a serious question whether or not we might not lose 
again in the Court of Appeals, and if we did I wanted to be favor- 
able with the Governor and I wanted him to understand that I 
had done him favors through these people and went out of my 
way to do favors for this man because I thought it might be 
beneficial to me and to my people in my district. And because of 
that I am. now being branded by the very man that I tried to 
help because of these little favors that I did, and here I am to- 
night being charged because of a telephonic communication, be- 
cause of writing a letter to the man and taking an interest into 
bim, which all tends, some people say, to show that I had some 
interest, some motive other than that which was right. 

And I submit to you, gentlemen of the Senate, Mr. President, 
that if ever I did anything wrong in this matter I never would 
stand here and make the statement that I do. 

ISTow, let us go further and we will come to the very telephone 
that the Attoruey-General refers to as 3605 to 1513 ; 10:50 in the 
morning the call was sent in; at 11 :05 — it took fifteen or seven- 
teen minutes to get me this day. I want to sav, Mr. President 
and gentlemen of the ISenate, that when they, by innuendo, say 
that I did not receive that telephonic communication in my room 
down below they say what is untrue. I sat at my desk ODenin.o; 
my letters. I never come up here much before quarter past eleven 
or twenty minutes past. I am there every morning answeriuo- 
fifty or sixty or seventy letters referring to legislation before this 
Senate or Assembly, and it was while I was there engaged in my 
duties that the telephone rang at the desk, and the stenographer 
sat as close as the Senator from the twenty-second does to me, be- 
cause the room is narrow, and we have three desks, the clerk's, the 
stenographer's and mine, and everv time the telephone rings the 
stenographer must stop her work, because I can't hear on the 
'phone, and she must sit there and listen to this communication, 



625 

at least what I am sayiug. It did take ten minutes probably 
that morning ; I did have trouble talking to the man. It was the 
day of the flood and the wires were either crossed or something, 
I don't know, but time and again I said to him, '' I can't hear 
you," and the connection seemed to be discontinued, and I would 
have to ring up two or three times. But never did he accuse me 
on the 'phone — if I was to hear such a thing as that on a public 
telephone, tell me that he was going to send a telegram to the 
Governor or to the legislators, I would hang the receiver up and 
tell him probably what I don't Avish to say here, in a minute. I 
don't think a man would sit in a public telephone and let a man 
talk that way to him. 

When I read his statement in the paper, when I recollected the 
conversation, I saw how cunningly he had interwoven enough 
words that I said to give a semblance of truth to the statement, 
and therefore make it more dangerous and more bitterly opposed 
to me. He was referring to the Milbuni brief in the conversation 
we had the night before, wherein I said : '^ If what Mr. Taylor 
says is true you hadn't ought to have your bill out of the Com- 
mittee." He says, '' I hope you don't feel that way." I says, 
'' Well, all right, bring it up before the Committee and see what 
they say." And the next morning he has that in his mind, because 
that is what he was talking about, and he does make the state- 
ment that he has been fighting thirty years the ^ew York Stock 
Exchange and he didn't want to be thrown down now, and he 
hoped that that brief would not affect me or the Committee, or 
words to that eifect. And every once in awhile the telephoue 
would be disconnected or his voice would be so low that you could 
not follow what he was saying and I did answer some words 
he said, that I had always been fair to him, and I did not under- 
stand what he meant, or words like that, but that the matter wonld 
l3e brought up before the Committee for their consideration. He 
did ask me when the Committee would meet, I did tell him after 
the session adjourned ; he did ask me whether or not T wouldn't 
let him know what disposition would be taken of it; I told him 
probably it would be held up, I couldn't say. But a great many 
things that he said was said by me and which could be miscon- 
strued — 'but does his own statement say at any point that I ad- 
mitted the statement to be true ? ^ot one bit of it. Wouldn't any 
man say, '' That is a lie," or admit it was a truth, or try in some 
m.anner, he would say something which would convict him ? Why, 
40 



626 

it is said here, why didn't I deny it on the 'phone ? Why, gentle- 
men, the first and only reas(>n why, because he never said what 
he says he did on the 'phone, and therefore I couldn't deny it. 

Now, coming — further answering these various telephones At 
1 :30 I called up and informed him that Chairman of the Assem- 
bly Committee on Codes, he had gone to them and spoken to them 
and that theii and there they said they were opposed to the amend- 
ment, I called him up, told him that he better get his Assembly- 
man, if he wanted that, to go over to the Assembly, and keep him 
posted as to what was going on. 

'Now, I submit, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Senate, 
I ask you where is this man Kendall corroborated, where in the 
testimony is there a person who has corroborated him? And yet 
it is upon his testimony that you are asked to convict me, to expel 
me from this chamber. The testimony shows that Mr. Field said 
he never heard me ask for a dollar, never demanded a dollar. 
But the corroboration is, and the only corroboration, is the fact 
that this man Field, a cousin and vice-president of the company, 
was at the 'phone on the 26th day of March, and that there with 
his left hand — with the receiver to his left ear, he heard the con- 
versation that was going on and with his right hand wrote it down, 
wrote it down, every word of it. I want to say to every Senator 
v/ho saw the original notes that those original notes were made 
just as plain as though they sat down deliberately and wrote a 
letter. It is a physical impossibility for a man to do that. Mr. 
Field couldn't have done it. Oh, but here is the strong point : Let 
me call the attention of the Senate to this one fact: Here is a 
stenographer. Miss Allen, who is treasurer of the company and 
who writes the checks, in whom they have great confidence, and a 
girl that Mr. Kendall said would tell the truth under any and all 
circumstances. She has the 'phone for one instant and is told to 
drop it. 'She is a stenographer. I^ow I ask you in all fairness, 
gentlemen, if you were doing the same thing and wanted to get 
a proper record and a correct record, wouldn't you have said : " Sit 
right there and take it down in shorthand, word for word." 
Wouldn't her word be taken better than Mr. Field's, that he took 
in longhand ? Why didn't they leave Miss Allen there ? Whv 
didn't Miss Allen retain that receiver until the conversation was 
through ? Kendall says because she was so honest that she mio-ht 
get scared in cross-examination and break down. Now, I want 
to say that there was seven hundred and eighty words in eleven 



62Y 

minutes taken do^vn in longliand by Mr. Field, seven hundred and 
eighty words in eleven minutes. That is the exact number, and 
that is the only corroboration by anybody of an3i:hing connected 
with this case. There isn't another person who corroborates 
Kendall. 

Now, I submit, gentlemen of the Senate, before you find me 
guilty you must find that that man Field testified to the truth. 
Can you do it ? Can you do it? If Mr. Field swore false in that 
.particular instance, why isn't it likely that he swore false in every 
other instance? Throw out Field's testimony and what have you 
got ? E^othing, nothing in it. 

!Now, the Attorney-General would have you believe that I had 
the bill reported immediately as soon as I got this threat. Why, 
gentlemen, the hearing on the bill was the week before. The At- 
torney-General says it laid in force there for a month or two, never 
came out, and because of his threat the bill immediately moved. 
Let me say, Mr. President, that the bill was introduced on the 
27th of February, and there was no hearing onto it until the 19th 
day of March, the first and only hearing which was set for it, and 
everybody was notified about the hearing, and the following Wed- 
nesday it was reported out. It could not have been reported be- 
fore, and the proper method would be to take it up the following 
week, which was done, and the bill was reported out. 

Then they would have you believe that I had that tremendous 
power, that there was a comity of interest between the two houses, 
that I could, by waiving my hand, have the Assembly Committee 
report the bill out also, and because he scared me the Assembly 
Committee reported that bill out. 

I want to say, Mr. President, and to every Senator on this floor, 
I never went before the Assembly Codes Committee this year. I 
don't believe I would know one member on that Committee, I 
couldn't tell you one name probably to-night. AVhile I might have 
written the letter and sent the names in there, they were taken 
from the list. The only man I knew was the chairman of it, had 
any acquaintance with, and never did I ask to have the bill re- 
ported out. Where is the testimony here — ■ I swore to that on 
the stand. Is that contradicted ? Did they dare bring a member 
of the Committee here ? I was under oath, I swore to that state- 
ment of facts, that I never was before the Assembly Committee of 
the Assembly — that is, the Committee on Codes of the Assembly, 
this year, and had never asked or spoken to a man on that Com- 



628 

mittee regarding this bill, excepting the chairman one time com- 
ing up on the train, I told him what Mr. Kendall wanted; the 
chairman had been before the Committee; he knew Mr. Kendall. 
But there is the exact truth. They could very easily have found 
out who asked to have the bill reported out, who made the ap- 
plication. I don't know, I never did; and therefore I want to 
say now that when I am charged with the Assembly bill, or the 
bill being reported out of the Assembly Committee, I know noth- 
ing about that ; I didn't know it until a day or so afterwards when- 
I called up Mr. Kendall and told him about it, and he told me he 
already had that information. 

Another thing, on that morning, the 26th, when he says it was 
ten or thirteen minutes, I told him to get his Assemblyman to 
attend to this matter over in the Assembly, that I have no time 
to do it. And I want to say to you as sure as I am standing 
here to-night — and I may be struck dead if I am telling an un- 
truth — that the conversation on the telephone was in my office, 
in room 230 downstairs, and not in a booth here. 

You may disbelieve me, you may expel me, but that is the truth, 
and every word of it is true. You know they tried to say that I 
lied when I made the statement under oath that the conversation 
took place downstairs. 

Now, I submit that the testimony being all in, the matter is 
before the Senate to decide. I have given my testimony under 
oath. I may have forgotten some things here in my excitement 
to-night. This is a trying ordeal. I don't wish anybody to go 
through two weeks of what I have put in. E^obody knows and I 
hope they never will experience the same thing that I have. I 
have tried to do the right thing and live the right life. The people 
in my district know me and know me well, have honored me in 
various ways, with dinners and everything else. They know the 
fight I have made for them; they have confidence in me down 
there. But you people, who are strangers to me as far as living 
within my district is concerned, or know my family or the people 
connected with me, I want to say to you in my closing argument, 
I ask every Senator here on the floor of this Senate to place him- 
self in my position. What would he want me to do under the 
same circumstances? And what you would ask me to do I ask 
you, nothing more nor nothing less. I don't want you to do a 
favor to me at all. I don't want you — if your conscience tells 
you that I am gnilty, vote against me, but don't for partisan rea- 



629 

sons, don't for any personal reason vote against me or expel me 
from this Senate. You might just as well have me tried for mur- 
der. That is what it means. If I am expelled from this floor it 
means ruination, not only to myself, but to my family and my 
home. And I ask at your hands simple justice the same as any 
man has a right to ask of his fellowmen. Thank you. 

Senator Murtaugh. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the forty-first. 

Senator Murtaugh. — I move that the question set forth in the 
resolution in the report of the judiciary committee be put, does 
the record submitted to the Senate by the Committee establish 
official misconduct on the part of the Senator from the twenty-first 
district ? 

The President. — The question before the Senate is : Does the 
record submitted to the Senate by the Committee establish official 
misconduct on the part of the Senator from the twenty-first dis- 
trict ? The clerk will call the roll and each Senator will answer 
as his name is called. 

The Clerk. — Mr. Argetsinger. 

Senator Argetsinger. — Here. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Blauvelt. 

Senator Blauvelt. — Here. 

Senator Wagner. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the sixteenth. 

Senator Wagner. — Mr. President, there seems to be a misun- 
derstanding as to whether this is a roll call to ascertain absentees 
or a roll call upon the question. I ask that the President put the 
question and that the clerk again call the roll. 

The President. — The question before the Senate is : Does the 
record submitted to the Senate by the Committee establish official 
misconduct on the part of the Senator from the twenty-first dis- 
trict? Upon this question the Clerk will call the roll, and each 
Senator will answer as his name is called. 

The Clerk. — ^ Mr. Argetsinger. 

Senator Aro'ctsinger. — Aye. 



630 

The Clerk.— Mr. Blauvelt. 

Senator Blauvelt. — Aye. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Bojlan. 

Senator Boylan. — 'No. 

The Clerk. — Mr. Brown. 

Senator Brown. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the thirty-fifth. 

Senator Brow^n. — I ask to be excused from voting and briefly 
state my reasons. This is a very bitter moment and I feel the 
supreme responsibility of the obligation of my oflice more than 
at any moment since I have been in ofiicial life. The natural 
instincts of the heart, and all the rights and privileges secured 
to all Anglo-Saxon men by constitutiona] law in England and in 
constitutions in this country, unite with the highest sense of honor 
in directing me at this time, as I believe they do every other 
member of this Senate, in looking upon the evidence offered to 
the Senate upon this serious charge as favorably as we may on 
the facts of the case. It has sometimes happened in great trials 
of this character that the man subjected to the charge has suffered 
also from 2^^1'tisan prejudice, sometimes from personal malice, 
sometimes from other unfortunate circumstances which had no 
connection with the case. That is not this case. And I for my 
own part intend to cast my vote upon this question according to 
the evidence. There has been a fair trial. The Senator against 
whom charges have been made has had an opportunity to say 
what he would before the judgment was pronounced upon him. 
It has been suggested, and I recognize that I am the center of 
that suggestion by reason of my position in the Senate, it has 
been suggested that partisan reasons might control some of the 
members of this body in casting their vote. I would appeal to 
every Senator present here, whatever party or no party, to cast 
his vote upon this matter according to his conscience and the 
fair, right thing and to summon that high sense of honor which 
nearly all men have active or dormant, to furnish an inspiration 
to them when they are to perform a supreme duty involving the 
interests of their country or the governm.ent of their common- 
wealth. 

I regret very much, Mr. President, that the testimony has 



631 

persuaded me that it will be my duty to vote in the affirmative. 
And I beg leave to withdraw my request and vote aye. 

The Clerk. — Mr. Bussey. 

Senator Bussey. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the forty-fourth. 

Senator Bussey. — I ask to be excused long enough to explain 
my vote. I sat with the Committee and heard the evidence from 
first to last and I feel that there is no justification for me to vote 
against Senator Stilwell, for I feel that the evidence would not 
justify it. I therefore withdraw my request to be excused and 
ask to be recorded in the negative. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Carroll. 

Senator Carroll. — Xo. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Carswell. 

Senator Carswell. — Aye. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Coats. 

Senator Coats. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the thirty-fourth. 

Senator Coats. — I ask to be excused from voting long enough 
to explain my vote. In the first place, I want to say that I am 
not influenced in any way by thoughts of political expediency 
in casting my vote. I look upon this proceeding as a quasi- 
criminal proceeding, for the reason that in casting our vote we 
find the Senator from the twenty-first either guilty or not guilty 
of acts which in themselves constitute a crime. I therefore think 
that the rule of evidence in criminal cases that the guilt of the 
accused should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt applies in 
this case. I have heard the evidence before the Committee and 
have heard the argument of counsel this afternoon. On the one 
hand you have as the principal witness Mr. Kendall, who is him- 
self a self-confessed criminal. To a slight extent perhaps he is 
corroborated by the man Field, who, if not confessedly, is surely 
an accomplice in the scheme to further legislation by coercion. 

On the other hand, we have the Senator from the twenty-first, 
who must be accorded, according to the opening remarks of the 
Attorney-General, such a position that his position in this body 



632 

would ordinarily refute any ordinary case. Plere we have a 
man who according to our system of jurisprudence, must be pre- 
sumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty of the charge 
against him ; we have a self-confessed criminal testifying corrobo- 
rated by an accomplice. 

I have examined the evidence, have heard it given and I am 
unable to bring myself to the belief that the acts with which 
Senator Stilwell is charged have been proven beyond a reasonable 
doubt. I therefore withdraw my request and vote in the negative. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Cullen. 

Senator Cullen. — ^o. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Duhamel. 

Senator Duhamel. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the Eighth. 

Senator Duhamel. — Mr. President, I ask to be excused long 
enough to give an explanation of how 1 vote. These are truly 
times that try men's souls and place the members of this body 
under great responsibilities. This morning I voted with a few 
members of the Senate for a resolution calling for a more thorough 
investigation of the facts connected with this matter, because I 
could not convince myself that any bribery had taken place or 
any extortion was attempted, notwithstanding my careful atten- 
tion to the testimony and scrutiny of the records. The able argu- 
ments of counsel on both sides did not enlighten me nor convince 
me that an act had been committed that necessitated the wrecking 
of the political and professional career of one of the ablest mem- 
bers of this body. The accuser in this case seems to be a man 
who has been at continual warfare with corporations, and the man 
seemed to be imbued with the idea that all men were corrupt. 
He has large ideas of the value of his wealth. 

I have known the Senator from the Twenty-first for the past 
three sessions and he has no peer on this floor for courtesy and 
accomplishment. There is no member in this body who is more 
prompt and constant in attendance at the sessions of the Senate; 
there is no man more active in the interest of his constituents, 
and I cannot deprive the Empire State of so faithful a legislator 
on such flimsy charges. I cannot vote to destroy a brilliant career 
of usefulness to his fellow citizens and abundantly capable of 
greater work in the future. 

I withdraw my request and vote no. 



633 

The Clerk. — Mr. Emerson. 

Senator Emerson. — 'No. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Eitzgerald. 

Senator Eitzgerald. — No. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Foley. 

Senator Foley. — Aye. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Frawley. 

Senator Frawley. — No. 

The Clerk.— Mv. Godfrey. 

Senator Godfrey. — ^o. 

The Clerk.— ]\Ir. Griffin. 

Senator Griffin. — !N^o. 

The Clerk. — IMr. Heacock. 

Senator Heacock. — Aye. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Healy. 

Senator Healy. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the Twenty-fourth. 

Senator Healy. — I ask the privilege of explaining my vote. 
I desire to say that at no time in my life have I heen called upon 
to reach a conclusion such as I am called upon to reach this night. 
It brings me back a great number of years when I was the age 
of eleven working for my daily bread, and I was accused of a 
wrongdoing. The incident was about as follows : It was my duty 
to dust the office of my employer, his desk, the superintendent of 
which place had no liking for me. In one of the drawers of one 
of the desks there were a great many stamps. After I had per- 
formed my duties I was called in by the superintendent and 
asked, '' Where is the stamps that was in that desk ? " I said, 
'' I don't know." That I put them back where I found them. 
They made complaint to my employer and had it not been that 
he had confidence in me I would probably have lost whatever 
future I might have had in my life. Three days after that my 
employer passed a little store next to the factory and he saw a 
sign in that window, " Stamps for sale." He went in and asked 



634 

this man, whose name was Morrissej, '^ George, how long have 
you been selling stamps ? '^ ^' Why/' he said, '^ ordinarily I don't, 
but one of your boys sold me some stamps and I have no other 
way of getting rid of them." He asked who it was, and he told 
him who it was, a boy of the name of Carroll that worked along- 
side of me, and when I had left my office, went in and stole those 
stamps. At that day there was printed deep in mj mind, and in 
my heart and in my soul, a thought that never as long as I lived 
would I convict a man if possible on circumstantial evidence. 

I have a wholesome desire to try to do my duty to my constitu- 
ents, to my State and to myself, and I can't see anything in the 
evidence as presented that is verified or is proven as a fact. It is 
a question, to my mind, of veracity of two men. How good or 
bad either of the two may be does not enter into the question with 
me. The question is simply one of duty and I want to say to you, 
Mr. President, that I ask of you the privilege to withdraw my 
request and to be permitted to record my vote in the negative. 

The Clerk. — Mr. Heffernan. 

Senator Heft'ernan. — - j^o. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Herrick. 

Senator Herrick. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the Seventeenth. 

Senator Herrick. — I ask to be excused from voting long enough 
to explain my vote. I have no quarrel with Kendall nor do I hold 
any brief for the Senator from the Twenty-first, but I feel my 
colleagues and I are in the dual embarrassing capacity of being 
both judges and jurymen. As a judge I must decide in my own 
mind whether the proof against him is sufficiently legal proof to 
convict him. As a juryman I must decide in my own mind 
whether he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And it behooves 
me and it is my duty to observe the attitude of the witnesses as 
they testified. And with that duty in my mind, Mr. President, 
I sat through those long, trying days and I heard Kendall's testi- 
mony and I weighed it carefully, and it was filled with vindictive- 
ness, viciousness, venom, hypocrisy. He says on page 54 of the 
testimony, '^ I said to him on the same penalty you will report 
that out of the other side of the House. Do as you please about 
it. Those telegrams go. I don't want to hurt you." No, he 
didn't want to hurt him. But after he had gotten out of Stilwell 



635 

everytliiiig he could by a criminal threat — for he stands as a 
self-confessed criminal before this body — after he had gotten it 
reported out of the Senate Codes Committee and the Assembly 
Codes Committee with a viciousness I cannot describe, my vocabu- 
lary is not suthcient, he takes his charge to the Governor. Why, 
1 don't know, except for one thing which I Avill take up later. 
He accuses the Senator from the Twenty-first of the most despic- 
able crime that I have ever heard, not only trying to extort money 
from a man who is desirous of legislation, but of selling his 
friends and colleagues unknown to them. I have heard his testi- 
mony uncontradicted - — I can't find it now — to this effect : Ken- 
dall said to me, " I have been approached by a member of the 
Codes Committee of the Assembly," and he said, '' I told that 
man I didn't mind it," or something to that eft'ect, ^' and when 
I met the chairman of the Codes Committee of the Assembly 
I told him just what was said to me." 

He came out in the open to the chairman of the Codes Com- 
mittee of the Assembly, tried to protect him from any scandal 
or any charges of bribery. Does that sound like a man who would 
sell his own friends, who would sell his own colleagues in this 
House ? I will admit that there has been one question that in my 
mind is very hard to decide, namely, what could be the animus 
of this man Kendall after he had obtained everything he wanted, 
to continue with his persecution. It never occurred to me, Mr. 
President, until I sat listening to the hearing before the Judiciary 
Committee last Friday and the Senator from the twenty-first 
testified, and he testified uncontradicted, that when Kendall was 
in his office they took up the proposition of the bill providing for 
the incorporation of the Stock Exchange. Stilwell said, ^' I don't 
think there is an opportunity for it to pass." Kendall said, 
" That is what I want ; that will give me the opportunity to get 
at those fellows down there on the Exchange." And to my mind, 
Mr. President and gentlemen of the Senate, that is the keynote 
of his animus, a monomaniac on this subject because of the would 
be or supposed to be wrong by the members of the Stock Ex- 
change. A monomaniac, and his idea was to get them by fair 
means or foul. And when he found out that this man, who from 
the kindness of his heart and a consciousness of his legislative 
duty, did his best to help him on his own bill, when he found out 
that that man was conscientiously and outspokenly opposed to the 
bill that would do him the most good, it was like waving a red 
flag in the face of a bull. 



636 

Gentlemen, I have spoken longer than I intended. As a judge, 
I don't think there has been legal proof to convict the Senator 
from the twenty-first. As a juryman, if this same kind of evi- 
dence were produced before me to convict him of murder I should 
feel that there was a reasonable doubt, and to my mind a man's 
character is more valuable than his life. I have not been con- 
vinced that Senator Stilwell is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Therefore, Mr. President, I withdraw my request and vote no. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Hewitt. 

Senator Hewitt. — Aye. 

The Clerk.— Mr. McClelland. 

(^o response.) : 

The Clerk.— Mr. McKnight. 

Senator McKnight. — Aye. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Malone. 

Senator Malone. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the forty-eighth. 

Senator Malone. — May I be excused from voting ? 
Being a layman and not a lawyer, I have to look at it from that 
standpoint. I have given this matter a lot of consideration. In 
fact I thought of nothing else to-day but this great question. I 
have acted in a great many actions as a juror in the city of Buf- 
falo, and acting as such the credibility of a witness was always 
taken into account, and if there was a doubt the doubt is always 
decided on the side of the accused. The credibility of this witness 
has been self-confessed. He has admitted that he is a blackmailer. 
"Now, my God, gentlemen, how can we stand here and destroy this 
man's life on the accusation of a self-confessed blackmailer ? 

The argument in favor of Senator Stilwell has been naturally 
such that eminent counsel like Mr. Byrne would give it, but that 
would not have any impression upon me unless I felt con- 
scientiously that he was right. The distinguished Attorney^Gen- 
eral, Mr. Carmody, presented this case in a most eloquent and 
you might say a convincing manner, but with all his eloquence 
and with all the convincing motions that he had within him, he 
strained a point to try to bring the facts in such a case as the 
guilt would rest upon the accused. I cannot believe, Mr. Presi- 



637 

dent and gentlemen, that with a self-confessed blackmailer tha4 
w© ought to convict Senator Stilwell. We must remember what 
the great poet said, that if we are to err, let us err on the side of 
mercy. The quality of mercy is not strained. It falleth from 
the heaven upon those beneath like dew. It is twice blessed, it 
blesseth him that gives and he that takes, it is mightiest in the 
mighty. I withdraw my request and wish to be recorded in the 
negative. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Murtaugh. 

Senator Murtaugh. — Aye. 

The Clerk.— Mr. O'Keefe. 

Senator O'Keefe. — ^o. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Ormrod. 

Senator Ormrod. — Xo. i 

The Clerk.— Mr. Palmer. 

Senator Palmer. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the twenty-seventh. 

Senator Palmer. — I desire to ask to be excused from voting 
long enough to make an explanation. I never was in many years 
in as delicate and difficult a place as I find myself tonight. For 
thirty years I have known, not the Senator from the twenty-first, 
but his parents, his brothers, and I would like to be excused, if 
it were possible, because I believe that a man of my profession is 
by law^ excluded from serving upon juries ; but I assume that I will 
not be excused, but will be required as a Senator to vote. That 
being so, I wish the form of the question was not what it is, that 
the question were formulated as follows: 

Have the charges against Senator Stilwell been proven or not 
proven ? Because if proven, he is a very unworthy man and a 
great disgrace to the noble name I know, who belong hj nature 
to him. And if I felt that it were proven that he was guilty, I 
would be the first man here, if I knew it, to vote, if these charges 
are proven, that he should be expelled from the Senate, and that 
he should have thought of his own dear people himself before 
becoming guilty of any such a crime. 

Mr. President. I have waited to see how the gentlemen of the 
lea'al fraternity in this room would vote. I recognize their 



638 

superior qualifications to determine the adequacy of evidence, and 
this is one question, and certainly a very, very great question, 
where I think I am entirely disqualified in comparison with the 
humblest lawyer here to analyze the evidence and to determine 
the result. But thus far I am not convinced that the Senator 
from the twenty-first has been proven guilty, and I would rather 
vote that ten guilty men were innocent than that one innocent 
man were guilty. For that reason I withdraw my request and 
vote no. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Patten. 

Senator Patten. — Xo. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Peckham. 

Senator Peckham. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the thirty-sixth. 

Senator Peckham. — I ask to be excused from voting aiid 
briefly state my reasons. I feel that to vote to find a fellow 
Senator guilty I must be convinced of his guilt, and upon the 
evidence I cannot vote against Senator Stilwell and I believe that 
I am voting right. I therefore withdraw my request and vote 
in the negative. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Pollock. 

Senator Pollock. — Aye. 

The Clerk. — Mr. Pamspcrger. 

Senator Ramsperger. — Xo. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Sage. 

Senator Sage. — Aye. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Sanner. 

Senator Sanner. — ^o. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Seeley. 

Senator Seeley. — Xo. 

The Clerk. — Senator Salant. 

Senator Salant. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The senator from the nineteenth. 



639 

Senator Salaiit.— ]\Jr. President, the evidence conclusively 
proves that Senator Stilwell received one-half of the two hundred 
and hfty dollars. Xo sane man or rational being can doubt that 
Mr. Stilwell did not receive one-half of the two htmdred and 
fifty dollars. That charge is absolutely established. 

As to the other charges, the Senators who are voting for Mr. 
Stilwell are laboring under a misconception of the rule of evi- 
dence. He is not being tried for his life here. The rnle of evi- 
dence that a case mnst be made ont beyond a reasonable donbt 
applies to criminal cases, and only to criminal cases. There onght 
to be another rnle of evidence in the case of a man that is tried 
for otfenses against society and morality, and that is, if there is 
the least breath of suspicion, he ought to be removed, and there is 
more than a breath of suspicion in this case. Mr. Stilwell can 
almost be convicted out of his own mouth, by his o\\ti testimony 
here. 

And it is very important to point out that the lawyers in the 
Senate here have so far, almost to a man, with the exception of 
one or two, voted in favor of Mr. Stilwell's guilt. On reading 
the testimony here, I cannot help but think, as a lawyer practicing 
at the bar, that a case has been made out against the man ; under 
the present conditions of complex ramifications of modern aft'airs 
it is impossible to prove an absolutely perfect case, l^o defendant 
that has ever been convicted of a criminal offense was convicted 
on a perfect case of proof. There is always an inconsistency, and 
lawyers know that with the honest witnesses on the stand incon- 
sistencies occur more than with those that are dishonest. I admit 
that Mr. Kendall here is a neurosthetic or is a neurotic, but we 
find admitted in courts the testimony of insane witnesses. This 
man is not an insane man. Those that have observed Mr. Ken- 
dall on the stand know that he told the truth when he said that 
Mr. Kendall came up to him — that Mr. Stilwell. when he had 
him in his office, said. '' Xow, let us get down to btisiness : you 
can't have that bill passed unless there is two thousand dollars." 
Does any one doubt the truth of that statement ? 

It is a very unpleasant duty to sit in judgment on any man, 
but the case here has been made out completely. The crime that 
Mr. Stilwell is accused of here is not a crime against the people 
of the State of 'New York only, it is a dastardly crime against 
the liberties of ninety millions of people, not only of the people 
of the State of Xow York, and I vote ave. ^Ir. Stihvell is s^uiltv. 



640 ■ ■ 

The Clerk.— 3ilr, Stivers. 

Senator Stivers. — Aye. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Siillivan. 

Senator Sullivan. — ^o. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Thomas. 

Senator Thomas. — Aye. 

The Clerk. — Mr. Thompson. 

Senator Thompson. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the forty-seventh. 

Senator Thompson. — I would like to make a statement. 
If I thought that the outcome of this proceeding simply affected 
the man, the Senator from the twenty-first involves, it would not 
take me long to make up my mind to vote to dismiss the charges ; 
and as I have not felt that I had a right to take into account 
sympathy, I could not help but to permit the thing tO' permeate me. 
But I think there is something which is involved here that is 
greater and of more consequence than any man or any one family 
in this great State. I think the honor of the great -State of IN'ew 
York is involved in this proceeding. The question that we have 
before us is not the guilt or innocence of the Senator from the 
twenty-first of a crime. He is not on trial as a criminal. The 
question that we have to decide is, Does this report establish 
official misconduct ? and therefore we must find what is official 
misconduct in the Senate of the great State of l^ew York 

N^ow, I don't intend to go into this evidence, only far enough to 
establish in my mind what I think ought not to be official con- 
duct on the part of a Senator, and that is when one of his con- 
stituents or a resident of his State comes to have a bill drafted 
and there is a free bill drafting department in one corner of the 
Capitol, is it proper for a Senator to send that man to a clerk and 
permit him to pay two hundred and fifty dollars to draw a bill 
which is printed on two sides of one sheet of paper ? Now, I 
think that establishes official misconduct. The question as to 
whether or not a Senator mixed in that should be expelled from 
the Senate is propounded in the next question, should we ever 
get to it. 

Therefore, Mr. President, I believe I owe a duty to the Srate 



641 

of ^ew York in voting this vote and I withdraw my reqnest and 
vote aye. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Torborg. 

Senator Torborg. — 'No. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Yelte. 

Senator Velte. — Aye. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Wagner. 

Senator Wagner. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the sixteenth. 

Senator Wagiier. — I was never so much impressed with the 
disagreeable part in public life as I am to-night, and the dis- 
agreeableness of the duties that devolve upon us at times. But 
I face it without any fear and with my conscieTice absolutely 
clear. 

There was an intimation, I think, in one of the papers yester- 
day, like there was an intimation against the Senator from the 
thirty-fifth, that I was using my influence with some Senators to 
cast their vote either one way or the other. That is absolutely 
false, and throughout this trial anyone who has observed my 
conduct — because of several circumstances I was particularly 
anxious and I was particularly careful in no way to interfere 
with the course of procedure or to take any part from which any 
Senator could be led to believe that I took a position either one 
way or the other upon this very serious matter, because I realized 
that as leader upon legislative matters my influence may be such 
as to lead one Senator, even against his own personal conviction, 
to vote one w^ay or the other. The one or two Senators that did 
speak to me I simply answered, '^ You must cast your vote accord- 
ing to your own conscience." And that is the way I propose to 
cast my vote. And if any other Senator used any other methods 
either to cause Senators to vote one way or the other, it is some- 
thing — a conduct for which I am not responsible and which I 
personally condemn. 

Mr. President, to show my sense of justice in this case, there 
was an incident which came up toward the end of the trial, when 
Mr. Lewis testified that while at first I insisted upon his resig- 
nation or that he be removed, he said toward the end that I had 
cooled off unless the newspapers got it, I think he said. I could 



642 

have, if I desired to inject a collateral matter into this trial, called 
the chairman of the committee that was investigating the charges 
as la witness in mj behalf; I could have called the clerk of the 
Assembly as a witness in mv behalf ; I could have called the 
secretary to the lieutenant-governor as a witness in my behalf; 
and I could have another gentleman who overheard any talk not 
only on Saturday but on Monday night in this Chamber in which 
I demanded that he be removed if he did not resign. But I 
did not desire to do anything, to inject into this trial a collateral 
matter by which I am charged of attempting to miscarry justice, 
and so I let that go unanswered for the time being, knowing that 
as a Senator in this Senate Chamber I would have an opportunity 
to disprove that falsehood. 

I have thought over tlie evidence in this case seriously, even 
more so because of my friendship for the senator from the 
twenty-first. I have not slept during the last few nights because 
of the seriousness of the situation that confronts me. But, as 
I said, I have a public duty to perform, and I will not shirk 
for persoual friendship or for any other reason my duty to my 
state and to the people, and I have come to the conclusion that 
the charges were sustained. 

I therefore withdraw my request and ask to be recorded in the 
affirmative. 

Senator McClelland. — May I ask that my name be called ? 

The Clerk.— Mr. McClelland. 

Senator McClelland. — I ask to be excused from voting for a 
moment and briefly state my reasons. I join in the expression 
of the leader of the majority when he has expressed on his part 
the assurance of no desire to influence the votes of any members 
in this Senate. The whole course has been honorable in the 
extreme. I have sat here quietly and I have sat as a member 
of this committee during the taking of the testimony in this 
case and I have endeavored to the best of my ability to discharge 
the duty that I owe the state with the approval of my conscience. 
For forty years I have been engaged, and over that, in the trial 
of criminal cases, and for four years was one of the assistant 
district attorneys of the county of Xew York. I have tried men 
for their lives, over two hundred and odd, and I may safely say 
that my experience has enabled me in this case to measure up 



643 

the evidence that has been offered on both sides to that standard 
of exactness that is required in the solving of the problem of guilt 
or innocence. I am not one of those who believe that we ought 
to enact another Dreyfus experience in this body. I do not 
believe that we ought to presume a man to be guilty until he 
should prove his innocence. The Senator from the nineteenth 
goes further and he says that if you have suspicion you ought to 
convict. This is the most remarkable case that I have ever read, 
heard of or seen tried. The complaining witness in this case has 
been a veritable Jekyll-Hyde, and I have seen the celebrated 
Bandman play upon the stage that character, and 1 want to say 
that the performances of Kendall upon the stage in this inquiry 
outrival any Bandman or any of the other actors that I ever 
saw portray that character. I was astonished to find this about 
the case: that it was Kendall alone, or if corroboration was had, 
it was the intimate agents of Kendall that furnished the corrob- 
oration. And the girl that would have spoken the truth and who 
could have taken every word and syllable of that talk over that 
'phone was taken away simply because she was going to be ex- 
amined and she might fail. An examination on what ? Well, 
all she -had to do was to read her notes upon the trial. Kendall 
said he had half a dozen witnesses there that heard the con- 
versation and he had but a single one of them there. And yet 
we have the very startling declaration that in thirteen minutes 
seven hundred and eighty words were subscribed in longhand by 
this man Field. Ten minutes probably was what it was and that 
would make seventy words a minute. Why Napoleon, one of the 
swiftest writers that ever penned a stroke, could only fifty words 
a minute. And yet we have this modern Xapoleonic lexicogra- 
pher who could do seventy words a minute. 

Now, Mr. President, I will conclude by saying that I have 
known the Senator from the twenty-first here for three years. He 
came to this Senate with honor ; he is the idol of his people and 
his constituents ; he has discharged the duties of his ofiice with 
fidelity and with honor. Nowhere before has anything ever been 
said against his legislative record. I can say that I have known 
him for thirty-six years, and that is a long while to look back 
over a lifetime, and I have ever found him honest, loyal, true, 
to his friends and willing to lend a helping hand to his fellow 
men. I glory in this opportunity to-day and the privilege that I 
enjoy to stand up here and pay this well eanied tribute to the 



644: 

gentleman. It is a glorious compensation for the agony that he 
has gone through, through the sleepless hours at night with his 
heart throbbing. I saj it is a compensation to all his associates 
to say, '' Well, done good and faithful servant." 

I withdraw my request to be excused from voting and vote in 
the negative. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Walters. 

Senator Walters. — Aye. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Wende. 

Senator Wende. — Iso. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Wheeler. 

Senator Wheeler. — Aye. 

The Clerk.— Mr. White. 

Senator White. — ¥o. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Whitney. 

Senator Whitney. — Aye. 

The Clerk.— Mr. Wilson. 

Senator Wilson. — Aye. 

The Clerk. — Ayes 21, noes . 



Senator Fitzgerald. — (Interrupting) — Before the vote is 
announced may I ask how the Senator from the twenty-ninth 
voted, how he is recorded if he is recorded ? 

The Clerk. — Mr. McKnight in the affirmative. 

The President. — The clerk will announce the result. 

Senator Heacock. — Detailed statement. 

Senator CuUen. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the third. 

Senator CuUen. — The chair has called for the announcement 
of the result. 

Senator Wagner. — Mr. President. 

The President. — The Senator from the sixteenth. 



645 

Senator Wagner. — May I ask if there is any Senator who is 
present who has not cast his vote ? 

(No response.) 

The Clerk.— Ayes 21, nos 28. 

The President. — By a vote of twenty-eight to twenty-one the 
Senate declares that the record submitted to the Senate by the com- 
mittee does not establish official misconduct on the part of the 
Senator from the twentv-first district. 



INDEX 



Witness 
Allen, Ethel G.... 
Doyle, Anna V. . . . 
Field, George A. . . 
Fischer, John B.. 
Gorham, Hiram S . , 
Kendall, George H 

Korzetsky, John . . , 



Direct 

90 

357 

231 

329 

85 

14 

78 

Lewis, Samuel, Jr 73, 367 



Re-direct 
316 



281 



46, 48, 98, 
269, 500 



Cross Re-Cross 



421 



Maeder, Eleanor . . 
Marion, Edmund L. 
Pfleiderer, Anna L . 

Pruyn, W. M 

Sloat, Irene 

Stilwell, S. J 



494 
428 
355 
46 
425 
432 



290 



100 228 



388 
497 
429 



426 

488 457 

By Lyon 
467 
By attorney- 
general. 

Williams, R. S 362 ... 424 

Van Zandt, W. H 44 ... 

Page. 

Report of Judiciary Committee to the Senate 503 

Reading of resolution as to special order of business 535 

Summing up of Mr. Byrne, of counsel for Senator Stilwell 535 

Summing up of Attorney-General Carmody 575 

Summing up of Mr. Wilson, of counsel for Senator Stilwell 602 

Speech of Senator Stilwell 616 

Vote on the question 629 



1. 


Page 


21. 


2. 


Page 


33. 


3. 


Page 


33. 


4. 


Page 


34. 


5. 


Page 


37. 



EXHIBITS 

STATE EXHIBITS 

Letter of February 20, 1913, Kendall to Stilwell. 
Letter of March 4, 1913, Kendall to Stilwell. 
Letter of March 7, 1913, Stilwell to Kendall. 
Letter of March 8, 1913, Kendall to Stilwell. 
Letter of March 21, 1913, Stilwell to Kendall. 

[647] 



6. 


Page 37. 


7. 


Page 42. 


7-j 


I. Page 43. 


9. 


Page 73. 


10. 


Page 75. 


11. 


Page 76. 


12. 


Page 77. 


13. 


Page 77. 


14. 


Page 90. 


15. 


Page 100. 


16. 


Page 270. 


17. 


Page 276. 


18- 


22 inclusive 


23. 


Page 319. 


24. 


For identi 



Gi8 

Bill No. 1188 with writing added. 

Copy telegram, " Fifteen is the correct number/'. 

Original telegram, " Fifteen is the correct number,". 

Telegram, March 31, to Governor Sulzer. 

Check to order Samuel Lewis, $250. 

Letter of March 3, Lewis to Kendall enclosing bill. 

Letter of March 5, Lewis to Kendall acknowledging $250. 

Letter of March 10, Lewis to Field. 

Telegram of March 25, to Stilwell, no signature. 

Letter book of Kendall. 

Letter of March 20, 1913, Kendall to Stilwell. 

Book containing list of members, etc. 

Page 314. Five memoranda telephone conversations. 
Telegram to Stilwell March 25 — " Five for thing as law — ". 
ication — notes taken by Miss Allen from notes dictated by 
Mr. Field. 
25-30. Page 362. Record slips for telephone calls. 

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS 

1. For identification. Page 105. Copy published evidence of Kendall be- 

fore Pujo Committee. 

2. For identification. Page 121. Copy speech of Kendall before Codes 

Committee. 

3. For identification. Page 129. Copy Milburn's brief on Cuvillier bill. 

4. For identification. Page 148. Copy New York Sun containing pictures. 

5. Bill No. 1188, page 197. 

7-11 inclusive are photographs of views of building of New York Bank Note. 
Company with canvas signs. Pages 220-222. 
12. Page 223. Copy of the World, February 13, 1913. 

On page 77 State's Exhibit 12 is introduced in evidence as a letter dated 
March 5, 1913, from Lewis to Kendall, acknowledging receipt of $250. 

On page 443, what purports to be People's Exhibit 12 is handed to the 
witness, as a letter of March 20, 1913, about the Milburn brief. 






,nn,^£'\'^Y OF CONGRESS 



027 272 802 1 



i»:«^ 



9^^^ 



<>t> 












